| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20220012 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Corpus Uteri: Are lymph nodes found on imaging post-surgery included in Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes if surgery is already completed? See Discussion. |
11/16/20: Patient diagnosed with endometrial cancer on by MRI of the pelvis; 11.5 cm uterine mass consistent with cancer with no lymphadenopathy. 1/6/21: Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Operative report stated patient had mildly enlarged bilateral pelvic nodes. Path report: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with invasion of the serosa. Five bilateral pelvic nodes were sampled and negative. Originally, staging had patient as node negative. 1/22/21: Patient had post op imaging done that showed metastatic retroperitoneal, aortocaval, and possibly left iliac lymph nodes. Physician changed staging to include the lymph node involvement. |
EOD includes all information available within four months of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression or upon completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment, whichever is longer. Since the imaging was within the four-month window, and the nodes could have been positive during surgery but not assessed by the surgeon, use the information from the imaging. Assign code 600 for EOD Regional Nodes for involvement of the aortocaval and retroperitoneal nodes (para-aortic nodes), size unknown. |
2022 |
|
|
20220031 | Tumor Size/Neoadjuvant Treatment: If a patient discontinues neoadjuvant therapy and then has surgery, how is the pathologic tumor size coded with the pathologic tumor size greater than the clinical tumor size? Currently, we are instructed to code 999 for the pathologic tumor size when neoadjuvant therapy is given; what happens when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is discontinued after 3 cycles (plan for 4 cycles)? |
Assign 999 for pathologic tumor size when patient has received neoadjuvant therapy, even when neo-adjuvant therapy is not completed. Describe the details in text fields. |
2022 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20220028 | Reportability/EOD Primary Tumor--Ovary: Bilateral ovary shows gonadoblastoma with germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Pathology report clearly states in situ. Is this case reportable? If this case is reportable, how would you code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor and SEER Summary Stage (SS)? In situ code 000 for primary tumor and code 0 for SS 2018 is not given as an option. |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Assign 999 for EOD Primary Tumor and assign 9 for SS2018. This particular histology is in the Soft Tissue Abdomen and Thoracic schema where EOD PT 000 and SS2018 0 are not available. This histology will be moved to the Ovary schema after redefining certain schemas and thus making the more accurate choices for EOD and SS2018 available. The schema redefine is planned for 2024 implementation. |
2022 | |
|
|
20220044 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code for a uvula (C052) primary with histology of squamous cell carcinoma, conventional (keratinizing) and p16 result is negative? See Discussion. |
The Schema ID for C051 (soft palate, NOS) and C052 (uvula) is Oropharynx (either 00100 or 00111 depending on p16). The Solid Tumor Rules Manual includes these site codes are under Table 4: Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue site group for histology coding. We are aware of the notes that allow coding of 8086 for keratinizing SCC, HPV-negative for sites listed in Table 5 only. However, it seems like C051 and C052 were incorrectly omitted from Table 5 (mis-categorized under Table 4). Can we code 8085 for 8086 for C051 or C052 based on p16/HPV status? |
Assign code 8071/3 for keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma. Codes 8085 and 8086 are only valid for the Head and Neck sites listed in Table 5 beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 and forward. |
2022 |
|
|
20220026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Parotid: How is histology coded for a myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma of the parotid? |
Patient has a 2021 left parotidectomy showing myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma. Is this coded to myoepithelial carcinoma (8982/3) or carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma (8941/3)? It is unclear how to arrive at the correct histology code using the current Solid Tumor Rules. |
Code myoepithelial carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma as carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (CXPA) (8941/3) using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule H1 as this is a single histology. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., describes CXPA as a rare epithelial and/or myoepithelial malignance arising in association with a primary or recurrent pleomorphic adenoma. The histologic type of the carcinoma component is usually recorded, in this case, myoepithelial carcinoma. |
2022 |
|
|
20220032 | Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is micropapillary serous borderline tumor reportable? Pathology states Testis (C621) radical orchiectomy: Micropapillary serous borderline tumor. |
We consulted an expert genitourinary pathologist who advises that micropapillary serous borderline tumor of the testis is reportable. He states "it is the same neoplasm as in the ovary. It arises from tissue (tunica vaginalis) surrounding the testis so is a paratesticular neoplasm." Please note: not all borderline tumors are reportable and this diagnosis is an exception because it is assigned /2 in ICD-O-3.2. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later. |
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 |
|
|
20220004 | First Course Treatment/Cancer-directed Treatment: What information can registrars use to determine disease progression and whether treatment counts as first course treatment? See Discussion. |
Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression? Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination? The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment. For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only? |
Determining first course treatment is based on knowing the treatment plan and its course as to whether it was completed as initially planned. Read the medical record, scans, labs, and physician notes. First course of therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed as planned. Alternatively, first course of therapy ends when there is documented disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure. A change to a drug in a different group or a change to a different treatment modality indicates the end of the first course of treatment. While a physician/clinician statement of progression, additional imaging, or other procedures that assess treatment efficacy, or increase in tumor burden can be used to denote progression, recurrence, or failure, a change to the initial treatment plan is a signal to to the registrar to suspect the end of first course of therapy. Once the initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is subsequent treatment. In the scenario provided, code FOLFIRINOX as first course of treatment. Based on the information provided, the Abraxane, Gemzar, and SBRT are second course and everything that followed that is second or subsequent course. The physician noted progressive disease and a new treatment regimen was started -- this is a clear indication of the end of the first course of treatment. The planned treatment course was FOLFINOX and surgery. Once that initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is no longer first course of treatment. Use text fields to document the details. |
2022 |
|
|
20220003 | Reportability/Histology--Anus: Are 2021 diagnoses of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II or AIN II-III reportable in patients with a known history of AIN II or AIN II-III diagnosed prior to 2021? See Discussion. |
Patient has a history of AIN I/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) dating back to at least 2015, was diagnosed with AIN II-III in 12/2019, and then diagnosed again with AIN II-III in 08/2021. There is no indication of treatment or a disease-free interval for this patient. SINQ 20210015, while not an exact match to this case, implies there is no clear disease-free interval for these AIN diagnoses, so it is the same non-reportable neoplasm diagnosed prior to reportability (12/2019). However, there was a diagnosis of a reportable neoplasm in 2021, so it also seems possible this would be accessioned as a reportable tumor based on a diagnosis of reportable tumor diagnosis in 2021. With the reportability changes for these intraepithelial neoplasia II/II-III tumors, these situations will arise more frequently. |
Report AIN II and AIN II-III cases when initially diagnosed in 2021 or later. Do not report retrospective cases; that is, cases with diagnoses prior to 2021 with continuation of AIN II or AIN II-III extending into the reportable period. |
2022 |
Home
