Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240025 | Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion. |
Example 4: Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false. Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries? |
High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual. |
Esophagus | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240079 | Reportability/Histology--Conjunctiva: Is low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL) with focal high-grade features of the conjunctiva (C690) reportable? If reportable, what histology should be assigned? |
Additional comments in this pathology report state "The entire case was sent in consultation to an ophthalmic pathologist. [Pathologist] assigns a conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) score of 2-3 due to the upward pagetoid migration of small, dendritic melanocytes. A C-MIN score of 2-3 is between low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL; C-MIN 2) and high-grade conjunctival intraepithelial lesion (HG-CMIL; C-MIN 3). The older terminology for this lesion would be primary acquired melanosis (PAM) with mild to focally moderate atypia." This term does not appear in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM), Appendix E1 of the SPCSM, or Solid Tumor Rules (specifically rule H3) . |
Conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) is reportable; therefore, low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL) with focal high-grade features of the conjunctiva (C690) is reportable, 8720/2. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual. |
Eye | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240033 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion. |
Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification. |
Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries. There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12. SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. |
Stomach | N/A | 2024 |
|
|
20240019 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head and Neck, Other Sites: Do human papilloma virus (HPV) histologies that occur with subtype/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in various sites apply only to sites in Solid Tumor Rules, Head and Neck, Table 5 and Other Sites, Table 23? See Discussion. |
The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids contain notes that say beginning 1/1/2022, keratinizing or non-keratinizing SCCs, HPV positive or HPV negative, are coded 8085 or 8086, respectively, for sites listed in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 only. Table 5 introductory section also states for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward: “When the diagnosis is a subtype/variant of squamous cell carcinoma and HPV status is also noted, code the subtype/variant.” This latter instruction is also included in Other Sites Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as a “Penis Coding Note.” Do these instructions ONLY apply to sites on those tables (and only to Penis or to Scrotum also in Table 23)? How should we code HPV-related keratinizing/non-keratinizing or other subtype/variant SCCs, for sites NOT on those tables, given the fact that only the more common histologies are listed in the Solid Tumor tables? For example, we recently reviewed a case with HPV-positive basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (C21.0). |
Code the specific histology as stated by the pathologist according to the site-specific instructions in the Solid Tumor Rules. When the histology provides a subtype/variant in addition to the HPV histology codes, code the subtype/variant as it is important to capture this histology as in the example provided. the instruction to code the subtype/variant over 8085 or 8086 applies to the following sites: oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, and penis. A note will be added indicating this in 2025. Per 2024 Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, morphology codes 8085/3 and/or 8086/3 are valid and applicable to head and neck, oropharynx, cervix, vagina, vulva, fallopian tube, anus, and penis (reference: Cancer PathCHART: Product Downloads and Timelines). Other coding resources will be updated to reflect these changes in 2025. |
Head & Neck | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240078 | Reportability/Histology--Lung: Are adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions on lung imaging reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
For example, a chest computed tomography showed multiple subsolid and ground glass pulmonary nodules measuring up to 6 mm; findings favored to reflect adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions. A literature search seems to indicate that adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions include atypical adenomatous hyperplasia through invasive adenocarcinomas. |
Do not report this case of "adenocarcinoma spectrum lesions" based on the information provided in the absence of a more specific diagnosis. Do not report until/unless a definitive diagnosis of malignancy is made. "Adenocarcinoma spectrum lesion" covers a continuum of lung neoplasms from preinvasive lesions (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ) to invasive lesions (minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and invasive adenocarcinoma). Should additional information become available, report the case and assign the histology code if a more specific histology is confirmed later. Use text fields to record the details.
|
Lung | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20240037 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is histology coded for a bladder tumor when the diagnosis is 95% large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and 5% high grade urothelial carcinoma of no special type? See Discussion. |
In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology. In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis? There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”? |
Assign 8013/3 (combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma). There are two histologies present: large cell NEC and urothelial. Literature search found primary large cell NEC of the bladder is extremely rare with less than 20 reported cases. This case does not fall into the site-specific rules and given it's raity, a specific rule for this situation was not and will not be added to the Bladder rules. See #1, Example 2, in the general instructions for coding histology. |
Bladder | Histology | 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 |
Breast | EOD Primary Tumor | 2024 |
|
|
20240064 | Primary Site/Histology--Ovary: We are encountering a primary site, histologic type, and behavior combination edit based on the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) tables. Using the CPC*Search tool, C569 and 8441/3 is a valid combination. The diagnosis date is 01/13/2024. Should an over-ride be applied with this combination? |
The CPC Validity Status of the site morphology combinations of C569/8441/3 and C569/8441/2 was revised from Valid to Unlikely with the latest release of the Version v24A Edits Metafile. As a result, this site and morphology combination will now require an over-ride flag to be set. Code as 8461/3 (high-grade serous carcinoma) or 8460/3 (low-grade serous carcinoma) if at all possible. Use 8441/3 (serous carcinoma, NOS) only if it cannot be distinguished as low grade or high grade. The codes for high-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are relatively new. High-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are very different tumors and pathologists should state whether it is high grade or low grade. Please make every attempt to use the newer codes. If unable to determine high gade versus low grade, assign 8441/3 and override the edit. The files on the CPC website are currently being updated, and CPC*Search will be updated to reflect the changes sometime this Fall. |
Ovary | Histology, Primary site | 2024 | |
|
|
20240039 | Update to Current Manual/Race: For the Example #15 under Race Coding Examples in the 2024 SEER manual, could coding these as 97 result in an under-reporting of Native Hawaiians? See Discussion. |
The race category in some hospital electronic medical record systems includes a combined category of “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” What race code should be used in a situation where the only available information is “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander?” |
Change to current instructions. We will update this example in the next edition of the manual. The new example will instruct registrars to look for other descriptions of the patient’s race. When no other information is available, assign 07, Native Hawaiian, in Race 1 and assign 97, Pacific Islander, NOS in Race 2. Begin following this new instruction now. |
N/A | Race, ethnicity | 2024 |
|
|
20240042 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Cervix: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor of the cervix coded when it invades into the bladder on surgery and noted as T4. No further information is provided, and it is not possible to contact the physician for clarification. Would you code 550 (Bladder wall; bladder, NOS excluding mucosa), 750 (Bladder mucosa), or 999 Unknown? |
Assign code 550 (Bladder, NOS excluding mucosa) to EOD Primary Site based on invasion into the bladder with no mention of mucosa. EOD Primary Tumor for cervix, Note 1, instructions are to use the extension information to code primary tumor in preference to a statement of FIGO stage when both are available. TNM staging is closely related to FIGO stage, and the surgical findings of bladder invasion NOS in this case should be used in preference to the statement of T4. |
Cervix Uteri | EOD Primary Tumor | 2024 |
An official website of the United States government
