Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230062 | Update to current manual/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Appendix: Is it correct to code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor as code 500 (Invasion of/through serosa (mesothelium) (visceral peritoneum)) and EOD Mets as code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells), when the resection pathology report for a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) proves “Tumor Extent: Acellular mucin invades visceral peritoneum (serosa)” as well as metastatic LAMN within the right lower quadrant peritoneum? See Discussion. |
This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)? |
Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor and code 30 for EOD Mets. This will correctly derive the T4aM1b stage based on AJCC 8th edition. Abstraction of peritoneal metastasis changed from the T category in the AJCC 7th edition to the M category in the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. As a result, for cases diagnosed in 2018 and later, peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant should be abstracted as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30. However, the EOD Primary Tumor code of 600 has not yet been updated to align with the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. The 2025 updates will correct for this via a conversion for cases diagnosed in 2018 and forward where EOD Primary Tumor = 600 and EOD Mets = 00 or 10 to EOD Primary Tumor = 500 and EOD Mets = 30. Effective immediately, abstract peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30, even though you will still have the ability to assign EOD Primary Tumor code 600 in your abstraction software until the 2025 updates are deployed. |
2023 |
|
|
20230028 | Histology--Vulva: How is the histology coded for vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III)/Squamous cell carcinoma in situ from a pathology report of the vulva, 8070/2 for squamous cell carcinoma in situ or 8077/2 for VIN III? The rules do not discuss this particular situation. |
Assign 8077/2 for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, VIN 3 in this case. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) of the vulva are also known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV-associated. The term squamous cell carcinoma in situ is not recommended. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
|
20230024 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is microadenoma reportable? A pituitary mass seen on imaging was "consistent with Microadenoma" on 11/15/2022. There was no histologic confirmation or treatment given. |
Pituitary microadenoma is reportable. Assign 8272/0. "Micro" refers to size of the adenoma. Per the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022, a reportable intracranial or CNS neoplasm identified only by diagnostic imaging is reportable, and "consistent with" is listed on the Ambiguous Terms to be used for Reportability list. As a result, this case is reportable. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on biopsy followed by invasive adenocarcinoma on radical prostatectomy more than 60 days later? See Discussion. |
Example: A prostate core biopsy showed intraductal carcinoma in 09/2022, which is an in situ tumor. A core biopsy again showed intraductal carcinoma in 12/2022. The subsequent radical prostatectomy in 04/2023, revealed multiple foci of invasive prostate adenocarcinoma with extensive intraductal carcinoma. Per Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M3, acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate is always a single primary. Note 4, this rule applies to subtype variants of acinar adenocarcinoma listed in Table 3, which has intraductal/ductal as a variant subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma. Does rule M3 apply to incidence cases (an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor)? |
Rule M1 applies because we don't know if there are separate tumors or separate foci within a single tumor. This is a single primary coded 8140/3. The prostate rules will be reviewed for an addition to cover this situation. |
2023 |
|
|
20220027 | Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--CNS: Is ALK-positive histiocytosis, primary site Central Nervous System (CNS), reportable, and is the correct histology code 9750/3? See Discussion. |
2022 case: Surgical Pathology Report-spinal cord tumor, biopsies: ALK-positive neoplasm most consistent with ALK-positive histiocytosis. |
Report this 2022 case of ALK-positive histiocytosis using histology code 9751/3, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, disseminated. Use text fields to document that this is a case of ALK-positive histiocytosis. This term may be assigned a new code once the 5th edition of the Hematopoietic WHO Blue Book is released. |
2022 |
|
|
20220005 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion. |
A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification. |
Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. |
2022 |
|
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
|
|
20220010 | EOD 2018/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Myeloid Sarcoma: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded for a myeloid sarcoma with multifocal skin involvement? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis. HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma. |
Assign code 100, localized, using the 2018 EOD Primary Tumor, HemeRetic schema, for the myeloid sarcoma with skin involvement since only the skin is involved. Use code 700, distant or disseminated, when multiple organs are involved. |
2022 |
|
|
20220049 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many cases should be abstracted for a patient with 2022 wedge biopsy of right upper lobe acinar predominant lung adenocarcinoma and wedge biopsy of right lower lobe lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma if there is concern for diffuse spread throughout the lungs secondary to the lymphangitic carcinomatosis and possible diffuse pneumonic type of adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. |
Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis. Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).” Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies. It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions. |
Abstract two separate primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of Table 3 using Rule M6 in the Solid Tumor Rules (September 2021 Update). They represent two subtypes/variants of the same NOS histology. When coding histology, tissue from pathology takes precedence over imaging, including when stated as differential diagnoses based on the CT scan, as noted by the pathologist in this example. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
