Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20250009 | Sequence Number--Central/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a hematolymphoid disease included in the sequencing if it was not reportable at the time of diagnosis? |
Do not include the disease in the sequencing if the original hematolymphoid disease was not reportable at time of diagnosis.
The 2025 SEER Manual Sequence Number--Central Coding Instruction 1.a advises: A ‘reportable’ primary refers to the site/histology/behavior of the tumor and the years when reporting was required. Review of the reportability requirements in effect during the diagnosis year will be needed. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20250011 | Reportability--Liver: Is a 2023 cholangiocarcinoma case with Liver Imaging Reporting And Data System (LI-RADS) M (LR-M) lesion on imaging reportable? |
Report LR-M unless there is information to the contrary. The American College of Radiology defines LR-M as "probably or definitely malignant, not necessarily hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)." |
2025 | |
|
|
20250014 | Race/Spanish Surname or Origin: How are Race 1 and Spanish Surname or Origin coded for the following race/ethnicity statements: "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" and "FIRST NATIONS"? See Discussion. |
One of the largest hospital systems in our area includes "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" and "FIRST NATIONS" as dropdown items for patients to self-select for race/ethnicity. This hospital system serves 51 hospitals and 1,000 clinics across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. If "INDIGENOUS-LATINO/A OR INDIGENOUS-LATINX" is the only item selected with no additional text info available, how should Race 1 and Spanish Surname or Origin be coded? If "FIRST NATIONS" is the only item selected without additional text info available, should Race 1 be coded as 03? |
Assign code 01 (White) for Race 1 when described as Indigenous-Latino/a or Indigenous-Latinx. Indigenous-Latinx is an umbrella term for Indigenous migrants to the United States from Latin America including South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico (for example, Maya, Mixteco, Purépecha, Taino, Zapoteco, etc.). Latin America is listed in Appendix D of the 2025 SEER Manual as White. Assign code 6 (Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS) for Spanish Surname or Origin for Indigenous-Latino/a or Indigenous-Latinx in the absence of more specific information. Code 6 description includes the statement, There is evidence, other than surname or birth surname (maiden name), that the person is Hispanic but he/she cannot be assigned to any of the categories 1-5. Assign code 03 (American Indian or Alaska Native) when described as First Nations. First Nations usually refers to Indigenous peoples for ethnic groups who are the original or earliest known inhabitants of an area. The term ‘First Nations’ can be applied to individuals, but technically refers only to those who have Indian status under Canadian law as part of a recognized community. Within Canada, the term First Nations is generally used for Indigenous peoples other than Inuit and Métis. Outside Canada, the term can refer to Indigenous Australians, U.S. tribes within the Pacific Northwest, as well as supporters of the Cascadian independence movement. |
2025 |
|
|
20240055 | Update to the Current Manual/Tumor Size Summary—Neoadjuvant Treatment: Would you clarify instructions in the 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) for Tumor Size Summary when a patient receives neoadjuvant treatment? There seems to be a conflict with the STORE Manual. See Discussion. |
Starting for cases diagnosed in 2024, the SPCSM manual no longer requires the data items for clinical and pathologic tumor size. Instead, it appears to align with the CoC data item of Tumor Size Summary. The two manuals contradict each other when it comes to coding tumor size summary for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cancers. STORE states: "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." 2024 SPCSM states "If neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999." It continues to state 12. Assign code 000 when…. (a) no residual tumor is found…(i) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and the resection shows no residual tumor & 14. Assign code 999 when...(d) Neoadjuvant therapy has been administered and resection was performed. Do not use a post-neoadjuvant size to code pathologic tumor size; however, you may use the clinical tumor size if available It seems that we will lose the value of the tumor size summary if we code 000 when NAC is administered and there is no residual disease. Example: Patient has a 90 mm triple positive breast tumor and is treated with neoadjuvant TCHP (docetaxel/carboplatin/ trastuzumab/pertuzumab). After completing neoadjuvant therapy, the patient has a mastectomy with no residual disease noted on the final pathology report. Using the 2024 SPCSM instructions, code 000 for Tumor Size Summary instead of 090 for the clinical tumor size of 90 mm tumor noted before NAC was administered. This has the potential to affect data analysis, research, and clinical trial accrual. |
When there is neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, do not record the size from the pathologic specimen. Code the largest size of the tumor prior to neoadjuvant treatment; if unknown code size as 999. We will remove Coding Instruction 12.a.i in the next version of the manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20240054 | EOD 2018/Primary Tumor--Breast: We are having difficulty deciding when we can or cannot use physician-assigned TNM staging to code EOD data items if the medical record or hospital abstract documentation is unclear. As a central registry, we are unable to query physicians for clarification. Please advise what is a “discrepancy” in the EOD General Instructions to “Use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record.” See Discussion. |
We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines? A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes? |
Use all information available in the medical record. EOD is a combination of the most precise clinical and pathological documentation of the extent of disease as instructed in the EOD 2018 General Instructions, Extent of Disease section. EOD 2018 General Instructions, General Coding Instructions section advises to use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record. When there is doubt that the documentation in the medical record is complete, code the EOD corresponding to the physician staging. A discrepancy can exist within the medical record when the information in the chart is unclear, incomplete, or conflicting, for example, the TNM staging from pathology differs from the medical oncologist’s TNM staging. In the scenario provided, use the medical oncologist stage information that takes into account imaging and exam findings. Based on the stage cT4 N3b, assign EOD Primary Tumor: 400 Extensive skin involvement WITHOUT a stated diagnosis of inflammatory carcinoma WITH or WITHOUT dermal lymphatic filtration EOD Regional Nodes: 600 Internal mammary node(s), ipsilateral, clinically apparent (On imaging or clinical exam) WITH axillary (level I, II, or III) lymph node(s), ipsilateral including infraclavicular |
2024 |
|
|
20240063 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: How many primaries and what M Rule applies for a diagnosis of noninvasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/2) in 2019, followed by a diagnosis of noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) in 2024? |
Abstract two primaries using Urinary Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M12. The histologies include non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) and non-invasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/3). The two histology codes are listed as subtypes of Papillary urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in column 3 of Table 2. WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition classifies micropapillary urothelial carcinoma as an aggressive subtype of urothelial carcinoma with carcinoma in situ present in more than half of all micropapillary carcinomas. Rule 7 Note 3 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules states that there are no /2 subtypes for urothelial carcinoma with the exception of papillary urothelial carcinoma and applies to multiple occurrences of /2 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Rule 8 applies to 8131/3 and 8120/3. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
