Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
|
|
20200035 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion. |
Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date. There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term. How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection. |
In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by "differental considerations." If that is not possible, given the context and usage, "differential considerations" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI. |
2020 |
|
|
20170010 | CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: What estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) values should be coded in a case with two separate tumors (1 ductal, 1 lobular) diagnosed simultaneously in the same breast (single primary) with differing ER/PR values for each tumor? One is ER/PR positive; the other is ER/PR negative. |
In cases where ER (or PR) is reported on more than one tumor specimen, record the highest value. If any sample is positive, record as positive. Guidance on Collaborative Stage (CS) site-specific factors (SSFs) in the breast schema can be found in the SEER Registrar Staging Assistant (SEER*RSA): SSF1-Estrogen Receptor (ER) Assay and SSF2-Progesterone Receptor (PR) Assay. The SEER* RSA breast schema is found at: https://staging.seer.cancer.gov/cs/schema/02.05.50/breast/?breadcrumbs=(~schema_list~) |
2017 | |
|
|
20240050 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: Why is there no M Rule in the Other Sites Multiple Primary Rules related to extramammary Paget disease of the vulva? See Discussion. |
The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3). However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module. We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module? |
In sites other than breast (see Breast Solid Tumor Rules M8/M9), Paget disease with underlying invasive disease is a single primary and the underlying histology is coded. Primary Paget disease of the vulva is uncommon, and we cannot create rules for all possible situations in the Other Sites module. A GYN specific module is in development, and we will look into adding a Paget-related rule. It will differ because Paget in breast is a different situation while Paget in the vulva is always adenocarcinoma. Paget disease of the vulva is an in-situ adenocarcinoma of vulvar skin with or without an underlying adenocarcinoma (WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.). When there is a statement of “underlying” adenocarcinoma, it is a single primary as with Breast Solid Tumor Rule M8. |
2024 |
|
|
20200069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for an in situ encapsulated papillary carcinoma with an invasive carcinoma, NST? See Discussion. |
In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log? Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
In situ encapsulated papillary arising in or with invasive carcinoma, NST (a single tumor) is a single invasive histology. Use rule H14 and code the histology per Table 3. A note as been added to the 2023 breast rule H8 instructing when there is a single tumor with histology of in situ encapsulated papillary with invasive carcinoma or solid papillary carcinoma with invasove, continue through the rules. See H14 and code the appropriate histology per Table 3. Histologic types are becoming more complex and often have both in situ and invasive components but have a single code to identify them. |
2020 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20230014 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a case with thyroid fine needle aspirate (FNA) cytology with nodule 1 Bethesda category 5 and nodule 2 Bethesda 6, reportable in 2021? Does the Bethesda category 5 or 6 have any bearing on reportability? |
In the absence of information to the contrary, thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category VI are reportable. Thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category V are not reportable unless there is additional information confirming a reportable diagnosis. For both Bethesda V and VI, NCCN Guidelines recommend total thyroidectomy or lobectomy (depending on tumor size and nodal involvement) for the purposes of definitive diagnosis/treatment, so additional information should be available. We will add this to the next version of the SEER manual. In your example, nodule 1 Bethesda V is not reportable. Nodule 2 Bethesda VI is reportable. |
2023 | |
|
|
20091054 | First course treatment--Liver: Is planned therapy second course therapy if it is administered after documented progression of disease? See Discussion. |
A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed. |
In this case, neither the chemoembolization nor the liver transplant is part of the first course of therapy. The documented treatment plan was changed after disease progression. Chemoembolization was not part of the original treatment plan. First course therapy ends at this point. |
2009 |
|
|
20200034 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for 2020 breast lumpectomy final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? Summary Cancer Data and CAP Summary states: Invasive carcinoma with the following features: Histologic type: Tubular adenocarcinoma. See Discussion. |
Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual. |
In this case, the pathologist states two different histologies. Per the H rules, when there are different histologies, code the histology which comprises the majority of tumor. Use H16 and code histology stated to be more than 50% of tumor OR H17, code 8523 when percentage is not stated or unknown. |
2020 |
|
|
20081075 | Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: SEER Program Manual instructions state, "Portugese, Brazilians and Filipinos are not Spanish; Code non-Spanish (code 0)." How is that determined? Is that based SOLELY on birthplace? See Discussion. | The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity. |
Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.
Spanish Surname or Origin Scenarios |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
