Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190021 | Sequence Number Central--Brain and CNS: How is Sequence Number--Central coded for current/recent benign brain/CNS tumors when the patient has a history of an additional non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 (when these tumors became reportable to SEER)? See Discussion. |
We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors? Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004? Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file? |
For your example, code the Sequence Number--Central as 61 for the 1991 diagnosis if this was a state registry requirement in 1991 and code 62 for the 2017 diagnosis. |
2019 |
|
|
20180096 | Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion. |
This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor. |
Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type. |
2018 |
|
|
20180037 | Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy? |
Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180106 | First Course Treatment--Other Therapy: Please explain how to code this new therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for rare neuroendocrine tumors. See Discussion. |
According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2023: Code Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) in the data item Other Therapy, code 1, Other. See SINQ 20220042 and 20230005 for information pertaining to cases diagnosed in 2023 or later. |
2018 |
|
|
20180064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct? |
This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180045 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion. |
For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting? |
In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under "Additional Pathologic Findings." The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology. When there are multiple histologies and 1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or 2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes) Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer. |
2018 |
|
|
20180102 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion |
A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different. |
This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3. He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity. |
2018 |
|
|
20180066 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How is laterality coded for bilateral non-malignant central nervous system (CNS) or malignant CNS tumors now that laterality is no longer used to identify these tumors as multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied? Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign? |
Determine whether the CNS tumors are single or multiple primaries. Multiple cerebral meningiomas are a single primary according to the non-malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Assign laterality using the 2018 SEER Manual for select invasive, benign, and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors using codes 1-9 for all sites listed in the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table. In the example, assign code 4, bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary. The solid tumor rules are not a one-stop-shop for all coding. Refer to the appropriate coding manual for laterality. We removed laterality for determining multiple primaries in meningiomas as they were being over-reported according to CBTRUS. |
2018 |
|
|
20180095 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term "predominant" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say "See Synoptic" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion. |
Examples Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) |
The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term "predominant" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one "predominant" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7. |
2018 |
|
|
20180088 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site. Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries? |
The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3. For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue). This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
