Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240053 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is a 2022 diagnosis of “clear cell renal cell papillary tumor” on nephrectomy reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that the WHO 4th edition for urinary tumors has changed the behavior of “clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma” to /1 but registries are to continue collecting as /3. While the diagnosis in our case is stated as “tumor” it does seem like the pathologist may be using the new WHO terminology of “tumor” rather than “carcinoma,” so we are not sure if behavior is /3 or /1. |
Report clear cell renal cell papillary tumor (CCRCPT), formerly classified as clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma, and assign code 8323/3 until this new term and code (8323/1) have been adopted by standard setters. The Kidney Solid Tumor Rules advise to code clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as 8323/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th ed., has reclassified this histology as a /1. This change has not yet been implemented and it remains reportable. WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th ed., has since reclassified clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma as CCRCPT (8323/1). The name change was made because there have been no reports of metastatic events for this indolent tumor. The term clear cell renal cell papillary carcinoma is no longer recommended. |
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 |
|
|
20240019 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head and Neck, Other Sites: Do human papilloma virus (HPV) histologies that occur with subtype/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in various sites apply only to sites in Solid Tumor Rules, Head and Neck, Table 5 and Other Sites, Table 23? See Discussion. |
The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only. Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.” Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables? For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0). |
Code the specific histology as stated by the pathologist according to the site-specific instructions in the Solid Tumor Rules. When the histology provides a subtype/variant in addition to the HPV histology codes, code the subtype/variant as it is important to capture this histology as in the example provided. the instruction to code the subtype/variant over 8085 or 8086 applies to the following sites: oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, and penis. A note will be added indicating this in 2025. 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 (reference: Cancer PathCHART: Product Downloads and Timelines). Other coding resources will be updated to reflect these changes in 2025. |
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 | |
|
|
20240075 | 2024 SEER Manual/Reportability--Breast: Is "lobular intraepithelial neoplasia" (LIN) a glandular intraepithelial neoplasia? If so, is lobular neoplasia II (LN II)/LIN II non-reportable, similar to PanIN II - SINQ 20240026? See Discussion. |
The Reportable Diagnosis List indicates "Lobular neoplasia grade II (LN II)/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (LIN II) breast (C500-C509)" is reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Report LN II and LN III along with LIN II and LIN III and assign code 8520/2. WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 5th edition, lists lobular neoplasia as acceptable, related terminology for lobular carcinoma in situ. |
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 |
|
|
20240078 | Reportability/Histology--Lung: Are adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions on lung imaging reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions. A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas. |
Do not report this case of "adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions" based on the information provided in the absence of a more specific diagnosis. Do not report until/unless a definitive diagnosis of malignancy is made. "Adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion" covers a continuum of lung neoplasms from preinvasive lesions (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ) to invasive lesions (minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma). Should additional information become available, report the case and assign the histology code if a more specific histology is confirmed later. Use text fields to record the details.
|
2024 |
|
|
20240059 | Update to the Current Manual/SEER*RSA--SEER Site-specific Factor 1: The 2024 SEER Manual and SEER*RSA say that Codes 10-51 are hierarchical; use the highest code that applies (10 is highest, 51 is lowest). Should the guidance say that 51 is highest, 10 is lowest since code 10 is a HPV negative p16 test? |
Assign the highest code with 51 as the highest and 10 the lowest when there is more than one test performed with differing results. The SEER Manual will be updated in the 2025 release. SEER*RSA will be updated in a future release, version 3.3 in 2026, as version 3.2 has been updated for 2025. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240004 | Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is a malignant spindle cell neoplasm consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 and later, after thorough immunohistochemical work-up? See Discussion. |
Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology. These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries. As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ? |
Report malignant spindle cell neoplasms consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma as directed by Appendix E.1 of the 2023 and 2024 versions of the SEER Manual using 8830/3 (fibroxanthoma, malignant). We will update the answer in SINQ 20190102. While the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules address coding an NOS and specific histology sub-type/variant, this situation is not specifically addressed. We will also review the rules. |
2024 |
|
|
20240076 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Vulva: Is vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN II) alone reportable? An example is a final diagnosis from a pathology report that states only 'VIN II' with no additional details/wording. |
Report VIN II. The 2024 SEER Manual lists this as a separate diagnosis in the Reportability section under Malignant Histologies 1.a.x. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
