Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190035 | Reportability/Histology--Vulva/Penis: Are differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (C60._) and differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (C51._) reportable for cases diagnosed 2018+? See Discussion. |
We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct? |
Report differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (8071/2). The 2018 ICD-O-3 Coding Table errata dated 8/22/2018, lists the summary of changes of 7/20/2018, stating that these were erroneously flagged as not reportable and the flag was changed from not reportable to reportable (N to Y). We will update SINQ 20180020. |
2019 |
|
|
20190026 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Does Rule M11 in the 04/2019 Solid Tumor Rules Urinary update apply to synchronous/simultaneous tumors only or to multiple tumors with any timing? See Discussion. |
Rule M11 states: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs, but neither the Rule nor the Notes describe the timing of these multiple urinary organ carcinomas. Timing requirements for other rules are clearly stated. Does Rule M11 have a timing requirement or is it intended to apply to all urothelial carcinoma tumors regardless of timing (and not already qualifying for application of a previous M rule)? |
The revised Urinary Solid Tumor Rules 2018 Rule M11, updated April 2019, removed the requirement of synchronous. This applies to urothelial carcinoma (8120) and its corresponding subtypes, regardless of behavior, that occur in more than one urinary site in a patient's lifetime. See change log for the April 2019 update to urinary rules.This is the same M/PH rule for multiple sites. Timing does not factor in to this rule. |
2019 |
|
|
20190005 | Primary Site--Bladder: Does instruction #4 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules Instructions for Coding Primary Site apply to a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors? Instruction #4: Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system. See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder. How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation? |
Code Urinary System NOS C689 for this case since there are two separate urinary sites involved. Apply instruction #4 when there is a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors. |
2019 |
|
|
20190054 | Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ? |
Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190056 | Behavior--Breast: What is the behavior of a solid papillary carcinoma when a pathologist does not indicate it in the pathology report and follow-up with the pathologist to obtain clarification regarding the behavior is not possible? See Discussion. |
Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10). Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13. The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14). |
Review all sections of the pathology report carefully for any mention of invasion, or lack of invasion, pertaining to the solid papillary carcinoma. Per WHO 4th Ed Breast: If there is uncertainty that there is invasion, these lesions should be regarded as in situ. The distinction between in situ and invasive disease in solid papillary carcinoma is difficult. |
2019 |
|
|
20190081 | Race: How is race coded for a patient who self-reports as white? In the Family History portion of the genetics consult, it states the maternal family is of mixed European and Cherokee descent; the paternal side is of mixed German/mixed European descent. Is race coded as Race 1: 03-American Indian and Race 2: 01-White, or as 01-White according to self-report by the patient? |
Self-reported information is the highest priority for coding race. That is because the race information for the U.S. population comes from census data and that information is self-reported. For national cancer statistics, in order for the numerator (cancer cases) and the denominator (population) to be comparable, use self-reported race information whenever it is available. We will add this clarification to the SEER manual. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190095 | Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion. |
Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned. |
Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the "separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma. |
2019 |
|
|
20190052 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right nasal cavity (C300) invasive nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8072/3) in 2015 treated with radiation and excision, followed by a 2019 right nasal cavity (C300) invasive squamous cell carcinoma (NOS, 8070/3)? See Discussion. |
Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct? |
Abstract two primaries using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table, in this case, Table 1 Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses. |
2019 |
|
|
20190018 | Histology--Thyroid: Should any mention of encapsulated be included in the histology coding (8343/3 vs. 8260/3) for papillary thyroid carcinoma cases? See Discussion. |
Example: Left thyroid lobectomy with final diagnosis When the only mention of encapsulation is included in the tumor characteristics of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary, not the pathologist's choice of histologic type, what is the preferred histology? |
Assign 8343/3 for encapsulated variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. If the pathology report is not available, use the histologic type in addition to other information in the CAP Protocol. |
2019 |
|
|
20190030 | Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Prostate: Can imaging be used to code SEER Summary Stage 2018? MRI shows tumor involved the seminal vesicles and the patient did not have surgery. AJCC does not use imaging to clinically TNM stage a prostate case. |
Note 5 was changed in Version 2.0. Per Note 5 of the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Prostate chapter: Imaging is not used to determine the clinical extension. If a physician incorporates imaging findings into their evaluation (including the clinical T category), do not use this information. This note was changed in Version 2.0 (2021 changes) to be in line with how AJCC stages; therefore, AJCC and Summary Stage agree. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
