Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250020 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Vulva: Can instructions and descriptions from registry manuals be used to determine p16 status for the human papillomavirus (HPV)-related histology codes in the Solid Tumor Rules (STR)? Does it have to state that p16 is “positive” or “over-expressed” only? See Discussion. |
The STR states that p16 can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies for selected sites depending on diagnosis year but contains no instructions about how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. These are often stated in various ways in our area, depending on the pathology lab and different pathologists. The SSDI Manual and SEER Coding and Staging Manual each have some instructions and code definitions for p16, including: - Code 0 for p16 expression of weak intensity or limited distribution - Code 0: p16 Negative; Nonreactive - Code 1: p16 Positive; Diffuse, Strong reactivity - IHC for p16 expression is a surrogate marker for HPV infection Example: 2023 squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva, partial vulvectomy; pathology states vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia-3, p16 immunohistochemistry demonstrates block-like expression, which supports the diagnosis. The next path report states invasive squamous cell carcinoma, stain for p16 is strong and diffuse in the lesion, supporting the above diagnosis. Neither path report specifically states "HPV-related," so are p16 "expression" and "strong and diffuse" staining enough to code the histology as 8085/3 for this case? |
Refer to the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocols to determine how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. Per the Vulva CAP Protocol, p16 positive is defined as diffuse or block-like expression. Since the pathology report states "block-like expression," code the histology as 8085/3 (invasive squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated). |
2025 |
|
|
20250025 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary? |
According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:
Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes? |
Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries. |
2025 |
|
|
20250030 | First Course of Therapy/Hormone Therapy--Meningioma: Should Sandostatin be coded as treatment for a Grade 1 meningioma? Patient had surgery and was somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) positive by immunohistochemistry. |
Code Sandostatin (octreotide acetate) as hormonal therapy when given including: · SSTR 2 positive meningioma (NCCN, 2025: smaller studies support the use of targeted therapy including somatostatin) · Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (NCCN, 2025: Tumor control: antitumor effect is supported by studies for well-differentiated G1/G2 gastro-entero-pancreatic NET. In lung/thymic NET, somatostatin analogues may be considered if metastatic or SSTR positive). The SEER*Rx entry for Octreotide Acetate was updated as studies showed somatostatin analogs may shrink tumors or inhibit further growth. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250007 | Reportability/Behavior: Our registry collects some borderline (behavior /1) cases that are not reportable to SEER or any other standard setters. Can we assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases? |
Do not assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases unless you have a way to flag them so that they are not reported to the standard setters as in situ cases. Work with your state central registry to ensure that these cases are not unintentionally included in state case submission. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250017 | SEER Manual/First Course Therapy--Neoadjuvant Therapy: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded for bladder cancers? The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder does not provide a clear distinction between the SEER site-specific codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect for All Other Schemas, codes 2, 3, and 4, as compared to the CAP Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) categories. See Discussion. |
CAP Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder/Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) selections o No known presurgical neoadjuvant therapy o Complete response: Absence of histologically identifiable residual cancer cells and extensive fibrosis of the tumor bed after presurgical neoadjuvant therapy (TRG1) o Strong response: Predominant fibrosis of the tumor bed, with residual cancer cells occupying less than 50% of this area (TRG2) o Weak or no response: Residual cancer cells occupying ≥50% of the tumor bed or absence of regressive changes (TRG3) o Other (specify): _________________ SEER Coding Instruction for Site-Specific Codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect - Schemas: All Other Schemas selections 0 Neoadjuvant therapy not given/no known presurgical therapy 1 Complete pathological response Present: No viable cancer cells/no residual invasive carcinoma identified Residual in situ carcinoma only 2 Near complete pathological response Present: Single cells or rare small groups of invasive cancer cells 3 Partial or minimal pathological response Present: Residual invasive cancer with evident tumor regression, but more than single cells or rare small groups of cancer cells 4 Poor or no pathological response Absent: Extensive residual cancer with no evident tumor regression 6 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and surgical resection performed, response not documented or unknown Cannot be determined 7 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed 9 Unknown if neoadjuvant therapy performed Unknown if planned surgical procedure performed after completion of neoadjuvant therapy
Death Certificate only (DCO) |
Code Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect using the surgical pathology report only. Carefully review the pathology report gross description and comments to assist with assignment of codes. Review of neoadjuvant therapy data items is currently underway. |
2025 |
|
|
20250031 | SEER Manual/Reportability/Histology: Is severe dysplasia reportable? This is commonly listed as a synonym for high grade dysplasia. Is this term "severe dysplasia" reportable in the sites where high grade dysplasia is reportable? This is listed as a synonym, but it is not clear. See Discussion.
|
We are seeing cases on this in head and neck. The College of American Pathologists Oral Cancer Protocol is showing this as keratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ) and nonkeratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ). SINQ Question 20230047 shows it as reportable for head and neck. |
Report severe dysplasia for selected sites. Not all high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia are reportable. Refer to the list of examples in the SEER Manual Reportability Section and Appendix E, Reportable and Non-reportable Examples. Check also for other standard setters, state, and local reportability requirements. High grade dysplasia, severe dysplasia, and carcinoma in situ are equivalent terms with behavior /2. Refer to ICD-O, WHO Classification of Tumors, and the SEER Solid Tumor Rules for preferred histology terms and codes. For example, WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition, states carcinoma in situ in the oral cavity is synonymous with severe dysplasia though it is not a recommended term. |
2025 |
|
|
20250002 | Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor reportable and if so what histology code should be used? See Discussion. | Patient had a left thigh soft tissue mass excision on 7/24/24 and was diagnosed with superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor. Margins were narrowly free of disease. Tumor size was 5.5 cm x 4.4 cm x 3.9 cm. The diagnosis was confirmed. |
Do not report superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor (8810/1) of the thigh. WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors, 5th ed., defines superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor as a distinctive low-grade neoplasm of the skin and subcutis, most frequently occurring in the lower extremities, especially thigh, followed by arm, buttock, shoulder, and rarely, vulva. |
2025 |
|
|
20250001 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Are the following terms and diagnoses synonymous with endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and therefore reportable? 1. Atypical glandular epithelium 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia 4. EIN/complex atypical hyperplasia (EIN/CAH) or focal EIN/CAH (on biopsy but the resection pathology or operative note states no EIN/CAH/atypical hyperplasia) |
We have questions regarding reportability of some terms/diagnoses after a review of EIN cases back to 2021. While some seem synonymous with EIN, others have different terms in the pathology report though the physician is treating as if they have the diagnosis. 1. Atypical glandular epithelium Scenario: Endometrium biopsy with ablation performed at Facility A on 8/7/2024 showed atypical glandular epithelium. Patient was sent to Facility B where the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) on 9/20/2024 showed other reactive fibrosis and obliterated architecture compatible with history of ablation. Is atypical glandular epithelium synonymous with and coded as EIN? 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia Scenario: Endometrium biopsy showed isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. Then Facility B did TAH/BSO that showed no evidence of high grade dysplasia, atypical hyperplasia, or carcinoma. 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia Scenario: Endometrial biopsy pathology states simple hyperplasia without atypia and the TAH/BSO is either negative or has the same histology; however, the treating physician is stating EIN. 4. EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH Scenario: Biopsy showed EIN/CAH but the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) pathology or the Mirena IUD treatment operative note states no EIN/CAH/Atypical hyperplasia. Are these reportable, similar to an in situ when the re-excision lumpectomy or mastectomy is negative or no residual disease? |
Reportability for EIN became effective in 2021. 1. Do not report atypical glandular epithelium. Atypical glandular epithelium, also referred to as atypical glandular cells (AGC), refers to abnormal looking cells that may be found in the tissue lining the inside of the endometrium or the cervix. While not malignant (in situ or invasive), they can be associated with a range of lesions in the female reproductive system. 2. Do not report isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. The NCI data dictionary defines atypia as an abnormality in cells in tissue. Report the case when further defined as atypical hyperplasia. 3. Do not report simple hyperplasia without atypia. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines endometrial hyperplasia without atypia as a proliferation of endometrial glands of irregular size and shape without significant atypia. There is no ICD-O code for this term. Simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia is an acceptable related term for endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Pathology has priority over a physician statement. 4. Report EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH (8380/2) based on the biopsy. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines EAH/EIN as a simultaneous change of epithelial cytology and an increased number of endometrial glands in a defined region. The preferred term is atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium; terms not recommended include complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia; simple atypical endometrial hyperplasia; endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.
|
2025 |
|
|
20250021 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of smoldering Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) reportable? See Discussion. |
The bone marrow was involved by lambda-restricted atypical B-cell and plasma cell populations with MYD88 mutation. Together these populations represent 10-15% of the bone marrow cellularity. While the bone marrow biopsy pathology alone did not provide a reportable diagnosis, the oncologist clinically diagnosed this as smoldering WM in the medical record. Is a diagnosis of smoldering WM similar to a diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma (MM), a reportable Heme neoplasm, since smoldering neoplasms may be considered to meet the neoplasm’s threshold in the bone marrow but is otherwise asymptomatic? |
Report smoldering WM (9761/3) using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Manual and Database (Table B9). Smoldering WM is defined as a poorly described asymptomatic disorder with a high risk of progressing to symptomatic WM requiring treatment. The term “smoldering” refers to the process meaning it is progressing, perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected. Smoldering WM resembles smoldering MM. |
2025 |
|
|
20250016 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Are high-grade squamous dysplasia / “severe” squamous dysplasia or glandular intraepithelial neoplasia reportable for all Head & Neck subsites? If so, what year did they become reportable? In reviewing SINQ 20240003, 20230047, and 20230046, it appears that at least the larynx, mandible, and tongue have been reportable since 2021. However, 8077/2 and 8148/2 histology codes are not included in the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) (2025 update) for Head and Neck, either in Tables 1-9 or the H Rules. |
High grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2) is reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2021. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia / glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8148/2) and high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia / squamous intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8077/2) are reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2001. Refer to other standard setters’ criteria for reportability as appropriate. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
