Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240018 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head and Neck, Other Sites: Please provide clarification about effective dates for using p16 testing to assign HPV-related histology codes for various primary sites. See Discussion. |
1. The 2022 and 2023 SEER Program Coding Manuals state under Histologic Type ICD-O-3: Beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 forward, p16 test results can be used to code squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). NAACCR 2023 Implementation Guidelines contain similar instructions on HPV histologies for cervix, vulva and vagina that are applicable back to 2022 (2021 for cervix). The current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules state on the Histology tables for anus, cervix, vagina, vulva, and penis and scrotum: "p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV associated and HPV independent histologies." Since Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules apply to cases diagnosed 2023+, can p16 results only be used from 2023 onward, to code HPV-related histologies for primaries that fall under the Other Sites module? Or per the 2022 SEER Manual statement and NAACCR 2023 Implementation Guidelines, could a p16-confirmed HPV histology code also apply to a 2022 Other Sites case and if so, is that only for cervix, vulva, and vagina? Further complicating the matter are the 2024 ICD-O-3.2 update documents indicating these codes are valid 1/1/2024+ for the “Other Sites” penis and scrotum. 2. Is using p16 testing for HPV-related histology codes ONLY allowed for sites in the Solid Tumor tables that contain the statements about p16 (Head & Neck Table 5, and the Other Sites tables noted above for anus, cervix, etc.)? Or could it apply to primary sites outside of those tables; for example, a 2022 pathology report from the ethmoid sinus C311 indicating an HPV-related histology based on p16 testing? The ICD-O-3 Annotated Histology lists include C310-C313 among the common site codes for 8085 and 8086. The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules “New for 2022” section and rule H1 Note 4 also mention that p16 can be used to code HPV histologies; these sections would seem to apply to all sites in that module, since only the more common histology codes are listed in the tables and if not, we are instructed to use ICD-O. |
Per 2024 Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, morphology codes 8085/3 and/or 8086/3 are valid and applicable to head and neck, oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, fallopian tube, anus, and penis scrotum (reference: Cancer PathCHART: Product Downloads and Timelines). The Cancer PathCHART SMVL will be updated for C632, Scrotum, with the next release of the NAACCR Edits Metafile, currently scheduled for May 2024. Assign histology codes 8085 and 8086 for the sites listed in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables. The codes 8085 and 8086 are applicable for a small group of sites according to the year they became valid for implementation as follows. Head and Neck Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids (2022+) Other Sites Cervix (2021+) Anus (2023+) Vagina (2023+) Vulva (2023+) Penis (2024+) Scrotum (2024+) While ICD-O-3.2 and Cancer PathCHART list additional sites such as Accessory Sinuses, they have not yet been implemented in the U.S. |
2024 |
|
|
20240027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2005 diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is followed by a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4? See Discussion. |
The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3). Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.” |
Abstract two primaries using the 2024 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M13. Glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type (9440/3) and astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 (9445/3) are on two separate rows in Table 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System, 5th edition, lists the subtypes of glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type as giant cell glioblastoma; gliosarcoma; and epithelioid glioblastoma. The term glioblastoma multiforme is not recommended for glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype in the 5th edition, and lists astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 as a subtype of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. |
2024 |
|
|
20240064 | Primary Site/Histology--Ovary: We are encountering a primary site, histologic type, and behavior combination edit based on the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) tables. Using the CPC*Search tool, C569 and 8441/3 is a valid combination. The diagnosis date is 01/13/2024. Should an over-ride be applied with this combination? |
The CPC Validity Status of the site morphology combinations of C569/8441/3 and C569/8441/2 was revised from Valid to Unlikely with the latest release of the Version v24A Edits Metafile. As a result, this site and morphology combination will now require an over-ride flag to be set. Code as 8461/3 (high-grade serous carcinoma) or 8460/3 (low-grade serous carcinoma) if at all possible. Use 8441/3 (serous carcinoma, NOS) only if it cannot be distinguished as low grade or high grade. The codes for high-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are relatively new. High-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are very different tumors and pathologists should state whether it is high grade or low grade. Please make every attempt to use the newer codes. If unable to determine high gade versus low grade, assign 8441/3 and override the edit. The files on the CPC website are currently being updated, and CPC*Search will be updated to reflect the changes sometime this Fall. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology --Brain and CNS: Why is high grade astrocytoma with piloid features (HGAP) not grouped together with the other astrocytoma histologies as a subtype/variant of astrocytoma? See Discussion. |
It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP? |
HGAP is listed as a separate classification and is not a subtype of the diffuse gliomas. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 5th edition, has two categories dealing with non-pediatric astrocytic tumors: Adult-type diffuse gliomas Circumscribed astrocytic tumors HGAP falls into the second category as a result of updates to the 4th edition WHO classification in 2016 with advances in the role of molecular diagnostics with the 5th edition. All astrocytic tumors were previously grouped together whereas not all diffuse gliomas (astrocytic or not) are grouped together on the basis of growth pattern and behaviors, and shared IDH1 and IDH2 genetic status. The new classification separates astrocytomas that have a more circumscribed growth pattern, lack IDH gene alterations, and sometimes have BRAF mutations (i.e., pilocytic astrocytoma). The impact of molecular advances has driven classification changes as described in the 5th edition. Review of site/histologiy combinations for CNS neoplasms is currently being performed by Cancer PathCHART experts. It's possible they will recommend HGAP be moved to a subtype/variant of astrocytoma, NOS. |
2024 |
|
|
20240033 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion. |
Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification. |
Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries. There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12. SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. |
2024 |
|
|
20240017 | EOD 2018/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized? |
Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Testis: Can a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) be added to the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion. |
We included this histology in SEER Workshop Case 12 and the histology coding accuracy was less than 40%. From emails we received, it is clear that registrars are unaware that the "somatic type malignancy" can vary but code 9084 applies when the diagnosis is teratoma WITH any non-germ cell tumor component. It may be helpful to add a definition for "teratoma with somatic-type malignancy" (9084) to the Solid Tumor Manual. |
We will add the same definition for teratoma with malignant transformation found in the ovary table: 9084/3 Teratoma with malignant transformation when a malignant (/3) histology arises in a benign teratoma. Teratoma with malignant transformation and teratoma with somatic-type malignancy are synonoyms. The term teratoma with somatic-type malignancy is outdated and no longer recommended. |
2024 |
|
|
20240041 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an optic nerve meningioma reportable if stated to arise in the “intraorbital segment” of the optic nerve meninges? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma. Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location. It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable. |
Report optic nerve sheath meningioma arising in the intraorbital segment. The optic nerve contains four segments, of which intraorbital is one. The WHO Classification of Eye Tumors, 4th edition, defines meningioma as a neoplasm originating from the meningothelial cells of the optic nerve leptomeninges. According to the Table 3 of the Non-malignant Solid Tumor Rules, all portions of the optic are reportable and meningiomas arising in the dura/meninges of an intracranial nerve are coded to cerebral meninges C700. |
2024 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
2024 |
|
|
20230060 | Histology--Urinary: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of bladder carcinoma with a mix of different urothelial carcinoma subtypes? See Discussion. |
The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.” It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.” The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis. |
Code histology as urothelial carcinoma, NOS (8120/3). Our subject matter expert advises that WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize mixed urinary histologies; therefore, has not assigned an ICD-O code for urothelial mixed with multiple variants. Only pure variants are coded as they have a different prognosis from those that are mixed. According to WHO, invasive urothelial carcinoma is remarkable for its diversity of morphological appearances and a single lesion can display an admixture of conventional urothelial and various well-defined histological subtypes. |
2023 |
An official website of the United States government
