Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200026 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Lung: How should EOD Primary Tumor be coded when imaging describes a large left upper lobe 9.1 cm mass that Also noted is no pleural effusion and normal chest wall. See Discussion. |
It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized. An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan. |
Assign code 400 as the term "traverses" indicates involvement with extension to the major fissure and is no longer confined to the left lobe. |
2020 |
|
|
20200012 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ring sideroblasts in 2005, and stated to have progressed to high risk disease/early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 09/2019? See Discussion. |
The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza. No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database? |
Abstract a single primary as we do not abstract early/evolving AML. This is still one primary until there is a confirmed diagnosis of AML. |
2020 |
|
|
20200036 | Reportability--Skin: Is malignant proliferative trichilemmal tumor (PTT) reportable, and if so, do we apply the matrix rule and code it to 8103/3? A literature search reveals these do exist, but are extremely rare. |
Malignant PTT (8103/3) of the skin is not reportable. A neoplasm originating in the skin with histology coded to 8103 is not reportable. See 1.b.i. on page 7 in the 2018 SEER manual for a complete list, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_maindoc.pdf |
2020 | |
|
|
20200068 | Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: Are colon primaries coded as local or regional (direct extension) on Summary Stage based on invasion into the pericolorectal tissues? For example, is a case with an ascending colon tumor that extends into the pericolorectal tissues, pT3, local or regional by direct extension? |
Code as Localized using the SEER Summary Stage Manual, Colon and Rectum, Note 6. Localized is for subsites that are not peritonealized, including the posterior side of the ascending colon, or when the pathologist does not further describe the "pericolic/perirectal tissues" as either "non-peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" vs "peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" fat and the gross description does not describe the tumor relation to the serosa/peritoneal surface, and it cannot be determined whether the tumor arises in a peritonealized portion of the colon. Refer to the coding instructions in both EOD and Summary Stage for a list of sites that are nonperitonealized or peritonealized. . |
2020 | |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
|
|
20200073 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Should the mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) row in Table 1 include the still often used (yet older) terms of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid, adenocarcinoid, etc. for clarity? See Discussion. |
The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The next update to the Solid Tumor rules will include adding the following four terms to Colon Table 1 as synonyms for Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma 8244
|
2020 |
|
|
20190013 | Laterality--Head and Neck: Were the topography codes C090 and C091 intentionally left off of the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table in the 2018 SEER Manual? The codes were also removed from Table 10 in the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Head and Neck but appear under coding instructions 1b. and 6b. in the manual. |
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. C090 and C091 were intentionally removed from the list of sites for which laterality must be coded. They should have also been removed from coding instructions 1b and 6b. We will make that correction in the next version of the manual. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190014 | Reportability--Behavior: Is reportable if it shows invasion or microinvasion pathologically? See Discussion. |
The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3. We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle. If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ). |
Severe dysplasia alone is not reportable. No further instructions apply because this term is not reportable.In order to use the instructions for behavior, you must first have a reportable neoplasm. If carcinoma in situ is mentioned and there is microinvasion, code the behavior as /3 according to the instructions in the SEER manual. You are correct, do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ). |
2019 |
|
|
20190094 | Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Skin: Is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) reportable as a lymphoma? See Discussion. |
The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa. |
Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is not reportable. ENV is a rare form of chronic lymphedema caused by any number of conditions including neoplasms, trauma, radiation treatment, congestive heart failure, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic venous stasis, and parasitic infection. |
2019 |
|
|
20190077 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Thymus: How should SEER Summary Stage 2018 be coded for a 2018 thymus primary which has mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement? See Discussion. |
The Extent of Disease (EOD) manual states that "Confined to thymus WITH mediastinal or pleural involvement" should be coded as regional by direct extension. I have EOD primary tumor coded as 200 and based on SEER*RSA, this is localized. |
Code 200 derives Regional Extension (RE) for Summary Stage; however, based on the information you provided, thymus primary with mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement, EOD Primary Tumor would be coded to 100: Confined to thymus (encapsulated tumor), which includes extension into the mediastinal fat; No mediastinal or pleura involvement. This derives "Localized" for Summary Stage. Per AJCC T1, extension into the mediastinal fat is separate from involvement of the mediastinal pleura. For Summary Stage 2018, this would be code 1, Localized only (localized, NOS): Confined to thymus, NOS; No mediastinal or pleura involvement or UNKNOWN if involved. We will note that "extension into the mediastinal fat" is included in code 100 for the next release (September 2020). |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
