Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021187 | Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable? |
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order: 1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable. 2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis. 3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable. |
2002 | |
|
|
20200031 | Histology/Behavior--Breast: How are histology and behavior coded for a case originally diagnosed as in situ and later an invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed but still a single primary using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M10? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary? |
Update the histology and behavior based on the invasive tumor when an invasive tumor is diagnosed within 5 years of an in situ tumor in the same breast. This will be updated in the 2021 revisions of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules. |
2020 |
|
|
20220042 | First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy: How should Lutathera be coded? CoC states XRT- Radioisotopes and SEER states Other Treatment. |
Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities. |
Update to the current manual: Code Lutathera as radiation (isotopes NOS code 13). We will make this change in the next version of the SEER manual. |
2022 |
|
|
20230059 | Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis stated as MDS/AML (myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia) per the international consensus classification (ICC)? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy was high grade myeloid stem cell neoplasm, 17% blasts by differential count. The pathologist further states that this could be classified as “MDS with increased blasts (MDS-IB2) per the WHO 5th edition classification, or MDS/AML per the international consensus classification (ICC).” FISH and cytogenetics revealed a loss of 7q, but no other AML-related genetic abnormalities. The physician confirms the patient has MDS/AML. |
Updated Answer July 2024 Code histology as myelodysplastic neoplasm with increased blasts (9983/3) based on the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition, Beta version 2. WHO lists MDS with increased blasts-2 (MDS-IB2) as a subtype of 9983/3. Terms coded to 9983/3 include
When differences exist between WHO and ICC, assign the histology based on the WHO Classification. |
2023 |
|
|
20010094 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion. |
ACR website: Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant. Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer. |
Updated Answer Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf |
2001 |
|
|
20031100 | Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description. |
Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease. |
Updated answer July 2024 No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma. |
2003 |
|
|
20190072 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for minimally invasive adenocarcinoma in the lung, 8140/3 or 8256/3? See Discussion. |
For example, 9/12/18 left lung upper lobe lobectomy: 1.5 cm, 0.8 cm invasive component, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma with acinar and lepidic patterns, G2, no visceral pleural invasion, no LVI, 0/14 LNS positive. An additional minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 1 mm, was seen away from the main tumor. The correct coding of the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma will ultimately determine if we have one tumor (using rule M7) versus two primaries (using rule M6). |
Updated answer: Code minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, NOS as 8140/3. This is a new term and code in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18 list. See Solid Tumor Lung Table 3, and Solid Tumor Lung rules H1 and H10. |
2019 |
|
|
20170023 | Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion. |
We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below. PI-RADS (v2) categories: PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal) PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date? |
Updated answer PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary. PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis. |
2017 |
|
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
2012 | |
|
|
20200048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right lower lobe invasive acinar adenocarcinoma (8551/3) in 2018 and treated with lobectomy, followed by a 2019 right middle lobe cancer (NOS, 8000/3) diagnosed as new stage 1 primary by cancer conference? See Discussion. |
Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes. |
Use M14 and code a single primary. Per our SME, carcinoma or cancer, NOS is not an acceptable diagnosis which is why 8000 and 8010 were not included in the tables or rules. We assume there was no tissue diagnosis for the 2019 diagnosis. We recommend searching for more information or better documentation on this case. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
