System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 09/15/2024 13:22 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20210021

EOD 2018/Lymph Nodes-EOD--Breast: Should Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes be coded as 150 (Clinical assessment only; Positive needle core biopsy/fine needle aspirate [FNA]) when the patient has a biopsy-proven, clinically apparent, movable ipsilateral axillary lymph node, but no evidence of involvement at surgery after neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

The clinical assessment code takes priority over the pathological assessment code in this case because the clinical assessment was worse than the pathologic assessment. Although there was a pathological assessment, the clinical assessment is greater. According to the general coding guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy, code the worst information, which in this case is the clinical assessment.

The 2018 EOD General Instructions for EOD Regionals Nodes, instruction #4, addresses neoadjuvant therapy as follows. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the most extensive lymph node involvement documented.

A new note is being included for the 2022 updates. Exception: If patient has neoadjuvant therapy, and the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment, the clinical assessment code takes priority.

 2021
20021041 First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy--All Sites: How do we code retinoic acid?

The code for retinoic acid depends upon the primary site and histology of the tumor. Code retinoic acid (also called Vitamin A, tretinoin, ATRA, all-transretinoic acid or Vesanoid) in the Immunotherapy field as 01 [Immuno administered as first course therapy] for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This drug is given to patients as an alternative to chemotherapy.

For all other sites/histologies, code retinoic acid in the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field. Use code 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy] or 3 [Double-blind clinical trial, code not yet broken] if the drug is given as part of a protocol. If the drug is not being given as part of a protocol or you don't know whether it is part of a protocol, use code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].

 2002
20150013

Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.

 

Examples

8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG    9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)

5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg    6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg

The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.

Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example.

2015
20200047

Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded "8" for Ovary? See Discussion.

This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice.

The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate.

SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary.

 2020
20200086

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Paraganglioma, NOS is reportable and malignant for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later. Paraganglioma, NOS is listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as 8680/3 without synonyms or related terms. Table 4 (ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines) lists 8693/3 Paraganglioma as a new preferred term. Is this correct? See Discussion.

Table 4 (Changes in reportable terminology), 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update, does confirm that the term malignant no longer needs to be used to describe a paraganglioma, but Table 4 includes the histology for extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) as the new preferred term for paraganglioma. Paraganglioma, NOS is histology code 8680/3. Which code is correct?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The correct code for extra-adrenal paraganglioma is 8693/3. The preferred term for 8380/3 is Paraganglioma, NOS. Table 4 of the 2021 ICD-O update was based on information from WHO.

Table 9 in the Head and Neck ST rules is being revised and formatted differently for ease of coding based on diagnosis year (prior to 2021 and 2021 forward). Not ALL paragangliomas will be included in Table 9. If a term and code are not provided in the rules, refer to ICD-O and updates. 

 2020
20240008

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion.

Should Note 2 state, "Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules." Currently the Note only states, "leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor," but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, "Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor."

The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2. 

We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add "diffuse" to your pdf version until the update is published.

 2024
20010145 EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20?

The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.

If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category.

 2001
20061049 Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?

The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.

"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.

 2006