Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2021)/Laterality--Melanoma: Will the table called Site for Which Laterality Code Must Be Recorded be updated in the 2021 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual as C444 is not included? The 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules say that C444 requires laterality; it says (new) beside it on the new Solid Tumor Rules for 2021. |
The laterality table in the 2021 SEER manual will not be updated. Please follow the 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules and assign a laterality for C444. |
2020 | |
|
|
20180038 | Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported when a 10/10/2017 skin biopsy identified myeloid sarcoma with monocytic differentiation, clinically stated to be leukemia cutis is followed by an 11/2/2017 BM biopsy showing an evolving high grade myelodysplastic process with atypical monocytes, likely an early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML), clinically stated to be a therapy-related AML (9920/3)? See Discussion. |
Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously. |
The leukemia cutis is secondary to leukemia that is already present. This is multiple disease processes going on at the same time. Look for more information on this case. Is there any previous diagnosis of MDS, leukemia, or some other disease that would result in a treatment related AML? If no further information can be found, abstract one primary with 9920/3. |
2018 |
|
|
20180095 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term "predominant" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say "See Synoptic" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion. |
Examples Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) |
The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term "predominant" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one "predominant" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7. |
2018 |
|
|
20170037 | Primary site--Other and Unspecified Urinary Organs: What is the topography code for a Skene's gland adenocarcinoma? |
The most appropriate available topography code is C681, paraurethral gland. Skene's gland is also referred to as paraurethral gland. |
2017 | |
|
|
20150057 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma. |
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case. |
2015 | |
|
|
20200073 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Should the mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) row in Table 1 include the still often used (yet older) terms of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid, adenocarcinoid, etc. for clarity? See Discussion. |
The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The next update to the Solid Tumor rules will include adding the following four terms to Colon Table 1 as synonyms for Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma 8244
|
2020 |
|
|
20200070 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: The December 2020 revision to 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, using behavior rather than timing to determine the number of primaries, has caused synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors reported as invasive carcinoma, NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) to be reported as separate primaries per Rule M14. Should an invasive carcinoma NST and a synchronous, separate lobular carcinoma in situ be separate primaries per M14? See Discussion. |
Recognizing the addition of the behavior requirement into this rule is an attempt to stop non-synchronous ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinomas from being accessioned as a single primary (SINQ 20200022), the issue with using behavior rather than timing is that now, synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors that are invasive carcinoma NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) are separate primaries per M14. Lobular and carcinoma, NST are separate rows in Table 3, so we cannot stop at M10 and code the mixed histology because there are two separate histologies with different behaviors. There is no rule that states we can just ignore the in situ tumors for the purpose of applying the M Rules. (We are instructed to ignore the in situ when coding histology only in certain circumstances.) The problem with Rule M10 appears to be related to timing. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The original issue with M10 was with registrars being instructed that multiple in situ and invasive tumors were a single primary and then coding 8522/3 when one tumor was in situ and one was invasive. This incorrectly identified both components as being malignant (/3). Our effort to correct this misconception apparently did not work. M10 has been revised to state that yes, an in situ lobular or duct plus an invasive lobular or duct is a single primary with a new note that states: When a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST, and lobular carcinoma, follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code. They will stop at H8 which instructs them to code the invasive histology. 8522/3 should only be used when both components are invasive. |
2020 |
|
|
20140080 | Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive? |
The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.
According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions." |
2014 | |
|
|
20230031 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a 2022 diagnosis of right upper lobe non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) when the patient has a history acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020, followed by squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021? See Discussion. |
The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed). While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis? |
The patient's previous acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020 and squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021 were correctly abstracted as two primaries per rule M8 as they are in different rows in Table 3. The NSCLC, RUL (8046) diagnosed in 2022 would not be abstracted as a third primary because NSCLC is a broad category which includes all histologies in Table 3 (except for small cell carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumors (NET Tumors) 8041 and all subtypes), and because it was diagnosed less than 3 years after the 2021 squamous cell carcinoma, RML (8070). |
2023 |
|
|
20021180 | Surgery of Primary Site/Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Head & Neck (Nasal cavity): Should a small fragment of bone removed during a maxillectomy following a turbinectomy for a nasal turbinate primary be "partial or total removal with other organ" for coding this field? See discussion. |
Excision of a turbinate mass and partial turbinectomy revealed melanoma of the rt nasal turbinate. A subsequent rt medial maxillectomy was performed and a small fragment of bone was included in the resection and identified in the pathology report. Would the removed bone be "connective or supportive tissue" only for a Surgery of Primary Site code of 40 or is it another organ for a code of 60? |
The piece of bone was likely removed to access the maxillary sinus and would not be a separate organ. Use the "All Other Sites" surgery coding schemes to code this primary. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total surgical removal of primary site]. Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites]. The maxillectomy was not performed in continuity to the turbinectomy and should be coded in this field rather than the Surgery of Primary Site field. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
