Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240044 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Esophagus: Should the Neoadjuvant Therapy data item be coded as 1 or 2 when the patient completes all but one cycle of the planned neoadjuvant therapy and the managing physician notes the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion. |
The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel) concurrent with radiation per the managing physician. The physician stated the patient completed the neoadjuvant therapy; however, it was also noted that patient completed five cycles of chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia. The SEER Manual does not address how to code Neoadjuvant Therapy when the patient completed almost all the planned neoadjuvant therapy. It seems inappropriate to code Neoadjuvant Therapy as 2 (Started but not completed) simply because the patient did not have one cycle of chemotherapy but is otherwise felt to have completed neoadjuvant therapy per the managing physician. Does the managing physician’s statement of “completion” impact how this scenario is coded? |
Assign code 2, Neoadjuvant therapy started, but not completed OR unknown if completed, for the 2024 SEER Manual data item Neoadjuvant Therapy. Assign code 2 when neoadjuvant therapy was begun and the patient did not complete the full course of neoadjuvant therapy. See Coding Instruction #3 on page 230. The fact that the patient completed five cycles of the planned chemotherapy, but the sixth cycle was held due to neutropenia is important information and should be abstracted correctly and documented via text data items. |
2024 |
|
|
20240077 | 2024 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Retroperitoneum: What is the primary site code for a final diagnosis of endometrioid adenocarcinoma from a biopsy of a right retroperitoneal mass? See Discussion. |
An 80-year-old post-menopausal female (status post hysterectomy for benign reasons) presents with a retroperitoneal mass on imaging. The pre-operative imaging shows the cervix and uterus are absent. Patient undergoes a robotic left salpingo-oophorectomy with biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass. |
Code Primary Site to C480 (retroperitoneum). Endometrial tissue may "break away” from the uterus and implant throughout the pelvic and abdominal cavities. This can occur in patients who suffer from endometriosis. This tissue remains behind when surgical removal of the uterus is done. Common sites of implantation are colon, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, and bladder. These cells may become malignant. When the uterus is no longer present (patient had surgical removal), code the site where the carcinoma was identified. The site-morphology combination of C480 and 8380/3 was designated as an unlikely site-morphology combination by the Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, as this is a rare type of tumor. Assign a value of 1 in the Over-ride Site/Type [2030] data item in order to pass the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) edit. |
2024 |
|
|
20240027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2005 diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is followed by a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4? See Discussion. |
The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3). Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.” |
Abstract two primaries using the 2024 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M13. Glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type (9440/3) and astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 (9445/3) are on two separate rows in Table 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System, 5th edition, lists the subtypes of glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type as giant cell glioblastoma; gliosarcoma; and epithelioid glioblastoma. The term glioblastoma multiforme is not recommended for glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype in the 5th edition, and lists astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 as a subtype of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. |
2024 |
|
|
20240030 | Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa. |
Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip). Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability. |
2024 |
|
|
20240015 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: Is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), solid type coded as 8500/2 or 8230/2? See Discussion. |
In the NAACCR Coding Pitfalls 2023 webinar, the example of DCIS, solid type is given. The webinar advised us to code 8230/2 (ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type). When going through the beginning of the solid tumor rules in the Changes from 2007 MPH Rules section it states "DCIS/Carcinoma NST in situ has a major classification change. Subtypes/variant, architecture, pattern, and features ARE NOT CODED. The majority of in situ tumors will be coded to DCIS 8500/2." In the equivalent or equal terms section it lists "Type, subtype, variant" can be used interchangeably. Since the example has it listed as as ductal carcinoma in situ, solid "type," would we code 8500/2 or 8230/2? |
Assign 8230/2 (ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type/intraductal carcinoma, solid type) using Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 3 as instructed in Rule H2 for in situ tumors. The carcinoma, NST row lists this histology in the subtype/variant column 3. Coding histology for in situ breast tumor differs from invasive. While the majority of in situ breast primaries will be coded to DCIS 8500/2, there are others that are listed in Table 3 that should be coded according to the specific histology. Some codes have the word subtype or type as part of their histologic term so these can be coded based on the histologic term as listed in the table. We suggest you routinely review the histology tables to see if a term is listed. |
2024 |
|
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Assign code 8574/3 only when there is A history of androgen-deprivation therapy or No history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma Prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation (PCND) can present as untreated primary pathology (i.e., a new primary) or more commonly as a post ADT and androgen receptor inhibition resistance phenomenon. PCND is either a newly diagnosed prostate cancer or a result of ADT indicated for treatment of other prostate cancers or other non-cancer diagnoses (e.g., benign prostatic hyperplasia) but not for the PCND diagnosis. We will edit the notes to make them more clear. |
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 |
|
|
20240017 | EOD/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized? |
Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor. |
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 |
|
|
20240021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “high grade dysplasia” (not specified to be squamous or glandular) reportable for esophagus, stomach, and small intestine for cases diagnosed beginning in 2024? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.” If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2? |
Report these high grade dysplasia of the following organs as stated below. Stomach: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Stomach Histologies and as described in the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition. Small intestine and Esophagus: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade, using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites Histology Rules, Rule H4/H26. The following note is listed for both of these rules. Note: This list may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. See SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual or STORE manual for reportable neoplasms The Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Esophagus Histologies and Table 7: Small Intestine and Ampulla of Vater Histologies will be updated to reflect this code as time permits. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
