Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130218 | 2013 | |||
|
|
20041038 | Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER? | "Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable. | 2004 | |
|
|
20051026 | Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: What surgery code is used to reflect the amputation of a finger for subungual melanoma? | 47 [Wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins greater than 2cm] is the correct surgery code for amputation of a finger for melanoma. | 2005 | |
|
|
20240073 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs), Rule M6, says to abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor. Does that 60-day interval apply to the original diagnosis date, or to the latest recurrence? See Discussion. |
10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion). 12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas). 4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis. Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior? SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6? |
Abstract a single primary for this scenario based on Urinary Sites STRs. 10/2017 and 12/2017 bladder diagnoses: Single primary (Rule M15: Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions). This interval is not indicative of recurrence as there is no clinically disease free period on follow-up. Use the Multiple Primary Rules as written to determine whether a subsequent tumor is a new primary or a recurrence as stated in the General Instructions. The only exception is when a pathologist compares slides from the subsequent tumor to the “original” tumor and documents the subsequent tumor is a recurrence of the previous primary. Never code multiple primaries based only on a physician’s statement of “recurrence” or “recurrent.” 12/2017 (bladder) and 4/2018 diagnoses (renal pelvis): Single primary (Rule M11: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs; behavior is irrelevant.) |
2024 |
|
|
20240071 | Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms/Multiple Primaries--Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Are essential thrombocytosis (ET) in 1998 and primary myelofibrosis in 2022 the same primary or is the 2022 diagnosis a new primary? See Discussion.
|
Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea. 11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations). The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary. |
Abstract two separate primaries, ET (9962/3) and primary myelofibrosis (9961/3) using the current Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual and Database (DB), Rule M15, use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator. Also refer to the example in Rule M15. In 1998, though the ET was not reportable (9962/1), the patient was treated with chemotherapy as a malignant neoplasm (9962/3). The Calculator instructs us to code separate primaries for these two histologies. ET may evolve into a secondary myelofibrosis, also known as post-essential thrombocythemia-myelofibrosis (post-ET MF). The diagnosis must be stated as post-ET MF; this would be a single primary. |
2024 |
|
|
20240060 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung case with a diagnosis only stated as "high-grade neuroendocrine tumor" in 2022? As the disease was advanced, limited workup was done, and no more specific diagnosis was provided. See Discussion. |
SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents. |
Assign 8249/3 for high-grade neuroendocrine tumor of the lung. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, defines two subtypes of neuroendocrine tumor of the lung, typical carcinoids (8240/3), and atypical carcinoids. WHO assigns typical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 1 as 8240/3 and atypical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 2 as 8249/3. They are regarded as low-grade and intermediate-grade, respectively. The preferred term for 8249/3 in ICD-O-3.2 is neuroendocrine tumor grade 2, with neuroendocrine tumor grade 3 as a related term. The Lung Solid Tumor Rules assign atypical carcinoid as 8249/3. |
2024 |
|
|
20240072 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Oropharynx: How is histology coded for a 2024 squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil when immunohistochemistry (IHC) stains are negative for p16, but in situ hybridization (ISH) testing is positive for human papilloma virus (HPV)? See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor Rules state that for cases diagnosed in 2022 and forward, p16 testing CAN be used to assign histology code 8085 (squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive). The rules also state that for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022, code 8085 MUST be based on ISH testing and not p16. ISH testing is not specifically addressed for 2022+ cases, but are we correct in assuming it can still be used as the basis for 8085? Multiple CAnswer Forum posts and the AJCC 8th edition Head and Neck staging webinar indicate that the correct chapter/registry staging schema in this situation is determined ONLY by p16 results - not ISH testing, and therefore the Schema Discriminator 2 SSDI should be coded as 1 – p16 negative, regardless of ISH results. While we understand that histology codes should not be changed based on staging criteria, there is a SEER/NAACCR edit, “Schema Discriminator 2, Head and Neck, Histology (NAACCR)” tag number N6802, that will not allow coding 8085 if Schema Discriminator 2 is coded as 1 (p16 negative). The edit does seem to be correctly enforcing the AJCC guidelines for choosing the staging schema, based on the sources noted above. Do the Solid Tumor or Site-Specific Data Items (SSDI) guidelines need to be modified for this situation? |
Assign histology as squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive (8085) for tonsil, NOS (C099) based on the positive HPV test. Codes 8085 and 8086 are valid for a select group of sites. The histology terms and codes that are valid for head and neck sites are included in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 (oropharynx). HPV detection tests that are used to identify HPV include DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR), p16 (IHC), or DNA/RNA in situ hybridization. Assign the appropriate method of detection in the SEER data item, SEER Site-Specific Factor 1. Schema Discriminator 2 captures additional information needed to generate AJCC ID and Schema ID for some anatomic sites as stated in the SSDI Manual. For oropharyngeal cancer, a schema discriminator is used to discriminate between oropharyngeal tumors that are p16 positive, p16 negative, or p16 status unknown in order to assign the appropriate schema ID. Only the HPV p16 test can be used to assign Schema Discriminator 2. If another HPV test is performed, code 9. Override the edit for Schema Discriminator 2 when p16 is negative. Coding updates will be implemented in 2025. |
2024 |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
2023 |
|
|
20230055 | Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "the differential diagnoses include, but not limited to, mantle cell lymphoma, atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and a variant of marginal zone lymphoma" reportable? In the Heme manual, they use differential diagnosis that include reportable conditions as reportable. This can be found under Code 1: positive histology in the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instruction section page 18. The phrase "include, but not limited to" makes this not clear. |
This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly. |
2023 | |
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
