Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250015 | Solid Tumor Rules/Behavior--Brain and CNS: Why was the Behavior of solitary fibrous tumor (SFT)/hemangiopericytoma, WHO Grade 1 changed from /0 to /1 in the 2025 Solid Tumor Rules (STR) updates? See Discussion. |
In previous STR versions and the ICD-O-3.2, SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 is 8815/0 and only SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G2 was 8815/1. However, Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS, Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) was changed in the 2025 updates to indicate both G1 and G2 SFT/hemangiopericytoma are 8815/1. No date range was provided for this change in the STR and the behavior of this tumor was not updated by the standard setters in other references (i.e., ICD-O-3.2). The behavior of G1 SFT/hemangiopericytoma was not updated in the 2025 ICD-O-3.2 updates. If the ICD-O-3.2 was the source of this change, should this have been documented in the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines? However, the 2025 NAACCR Implementation Guidelines indicates, "There are no ICD-O-3 changes for 2025." Is this behavior change in 2025 Solid Tumor Rules updates an error? Should the behavior of SFT/hemangiopericytoma, WHO G1 remain /0? |
For cases diagnosed 2025 and later: Assign behavior /1 for solitary fibrous tumor unless stated to be malignant. A review by the Cancer PathCHART expert neuropathologists found behavior code /0 is incorrect and both solitary fibrous tumor grade 1 and grade 2 are coded as 8815/1. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, assigns behavior as /1 and no longer recommends terms solitary fibrous tumor/hemagiopericytoma and hemagiopericytoma. The STR table is correct. Future updates to ICD-O should reflect this behavior. WHO Classification of Tumours, Central Nervous System Tumours, 5th ed. was reviewed by the CPC expert pathologists for implementation for cases diagnosed January 1, 2025. Reminder: Comparing the CPC Validity Status included in the 2024 CPC*Search to that included in the 2025 SMVL (that table that drives the edits) is incorrect. CNS Tumors were not reviewed for 2024 implementation, they were reviewed for 2025 implementation. There will be a 2025 CPC*Search and a /1 will be designated as a Valid. |
2025 |
|
|
20250016 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Are high-grade squamous dysplasia / “severe” squamous dysplasia or glandular intraepithelial neoplasia reportable for all Head & Neck subsites? If so, what year did they become reportable? In reviewing SINQ 20240003, 20230047, and 20230046, it appears that at least the larynx, mandible, and tongue have been reportable since 2021. However, 8077/2 and 8148/2 histology codes are not included in the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) (2025 update) for Head and Neck, either in Tables 1-9 or the H Rules. |
High grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2) is reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2021. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia / glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8148/2) and high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia / squamous intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8077/2) are reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2001. Refer to other standard setters’ criteria for reportability as appropriate. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250017 | SEER Manual/First Course Therapy--Neoadjuvant Therapy: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded for bladder cancers? The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder does not provide a clear distinction between the SEER site-specific codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect for All Other Schemas, codes 2, 3, and 4, as compared to the CAP Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) categories. See Discussion. |
CAP Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder/Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) selections o No known presurgical neoadjuvant therapy o Complete response: Absence of histologically identifiable residual cancer cells and extensive fibrosis of the tumor bed after presurgical neoadjuvant therapy (TRG1) o Strong response: Predominant fibrosis of the tumor bed, with residual cancer cells occupying less than 50% of this area (TRG2) o Weak or no response: Residual cancer cells occupying ≥50% of the tumor bed or absence of regressive changes (TRG3) o Other (specify): _________________ SEER Coding Instruction for Site-Specific Codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect - Schemas: All Other Schemas selections 0 Neoadjuvant therapy not given/no known presurgical therapy 1 Complete pathological response Present: No viable cancer cells/no residual invasive carcinoma identified Residual in situ carcinoma only 2 Near complete pathological response Present: Single cells or rare small groups of invasive cancer cells 3 Partial or minimal pathological response Present: Residual invasive cancer with evident tumor regression, but more than single cells or rare small groups of cancer cells 4 Poor or no pathological response Absent: Extensive residual cancer with no evident tumor regression 6 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and surgical resection performed, response not documented or unknown Cannot be determined 7 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed 9 Unknown if neoadjuvant therapy performed Unknown if planned surgical procedure performed after completion of neoadjuvant therapy
Death Certificate only (DCO) |
Code Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect using the surgical pathology report only. Carefully review the pathology report gross description and comments to assist with assignment of codes. Review of neoadjuvant therapy data items is currently underway. |
2025 |
|
|
20250018 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are histology and behavior coded when the Integrated Diagnosis is "Meningioma, WHO Grade 2," and the Histological Classification is "Meningioma with elevated mitotic activity, hypercellularity, necrosis, and sheeting architecture?" See Discussion. |
We are increasingly seeing pathologists use this terminology to describe WHO G2 meningiomas, but the histology term "Atypical meningioma" is not being used, and a more specific "Histological Classification" of other WHO Grade 2 meningiomas (i.e., chordoid or clear cell meningioma) is not given. Can the combination of meningioma, WHO Grade 2 plus the histological classification listing multiple features of an atypical meningioma be used to code morphology to 9539/1? Or is this just a meningioma, NOS 9530/0 despite the WHO Grade 2 classification? |
Code meningioma, NOS (9530/0) based on the integrated diagnosis and histological classification. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, states that brain invasion is a criterion for the diagnosis of CNS WHO grade 2 meningioma, and there is no statement of brain invasion, atypical meningioma, or other WHO grade 2 lesions. WHO has not proposed behavior codes based on WHO grade alone. |
2025 |
|
|
20250019 | SEER Manual/Tumor Size Summary--Breast: Can the size of a non-mass enhancement (NME) be used if it represents the largest size within the appropriate time frame to code tumor size summary when neoadjuvant therapy is administered? Clinical and pathologic tumor sizes are no longer collected for 2024 and 2025 cases. See Discussion. |
In the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2023, under clinical tumor size (page 115, item #12), it states: “For breast tumors, clinical size may be recorded based on the size of a non-mass enhancement (NME). NME is defined as an enhancing abnormality that is not associated with the three-dimensional volume of a mass, shape, and outlining, and it is separate from Background Parenchymal Enhancement (BPE).” This guidance does not appear to have been carried forward into the Tumor Size Summary coding instructions. |
Do not use the NME size from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to code tumor size when both tumor size and NME size are stated or if NME is the only size available. The size of the solid tumor mass takes priority over the size of the NME when provided separately and the NME is larger. The American College of Radiology, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) defines NME as an area of enhancement on MRI that does not belong to a 3D mass or have distinct features of a mass. It is a separate descriptor from size that includes modifiers describing enhancement patterns with a specific MRI pattern. |
2025 |
|
|
20250020 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Vulva: Can instructions and descriptions from registry manuals be used to determine p16 status for the human papillomavirus (HPV)-related histology codes in the Solid Tumor Rules (STR)? Does it have to state that p16 is “positive” or “over-expressed” only? See Discussion. |
The STR states that p16 can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies for selected sites depending on diagnosis year but contains no instructions about how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. These are often stated in various ways in our area, depending on the pathology lab and different pathologists. The SSDI Manual and SEER Coding and Staging Manual each have some instructions and code definitions for p16, including: - Code 0 for p16 expression of weak intensity or limited distribution - Code 0: p16 Negative; Nonreactive - Code 1: p16 Positive; Diffuse, Strong reactivity - IHC for p16 expression is a surrogate marker for HPV infection Example: 2023 squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva, partial vulvectomy; pathology states vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia-3, p16 immunohistochemistry demonstrates block-like expression, which supports the diagnosis. The next path report states invasive squamous cell carcinoma, stain for p16 is strong and diffuse in the lesion, supporting the above diagnosis. Neither path report specifically states "HPV-related," so are p16 "expression" and "strong and diffuse" staining enough to code the histology as 8085/3 for this case? |
Refer to the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocols to determine how to interpret p16 staining results on pathology reports. Per the Vulva CAP Protocol, p16 positive is defined as diffuse or block-like expression. Since the pathology report states "block-like expression," code the histology as 8085/3 (invasive squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated). |
2025 |
|
|
20250021 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of smoldering Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) reportable? See Discussion. |
The bone marrow was involved by lambda-restricted atypical B-cell and plasma cell populations with MYD88 mutation. Together these populations represent 10-15% of the bone marrow cellularity. While the bone marrow biopsy pathology alone did not provide a reportable diagnosis, the oncologist clinically diagnosed this as smoldering WM in the medical record. Is a diagnosis of smoldering WM similar to a diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma (MM), a reportable Heme neoplasm, since smoldering neoplasms may be considered to meet the neoplasm’s threshold in the bone marrow but is otherwise asymptomatic? |
Report smoldering WM (9761/3) using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Manual and Database (Table B9). Smoldering WM is defined as a poorly described asymptomatic disorder with a high risk of progressing to symptomatic WM requiring treatment. The term “smoldering” refers to the process meaning it is progressing, perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected. Smoldering WM resembles smoldering MM. |
2025 |
|
|
20250023 | First Course Treatment/Hormone Therapy--Multiple Myeloma: How is dexamethasone coded when given for multiple myeloma? See Discussion. |
The treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) in SEER*Rx says not to code dexamethasone. I have a patient with multiple myeloma who received the KRd protocol in 2018 and the treatment regimen consisting of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) (not in SEER Rx) in 2025. SEER RX says to code dexamethasone when it is given for multiple myeloma but also not to code dexamethasone when given as part of the KRd regimen (which is for multiple myeloma). I can follow the KRd instructions if that is what should take priority, but then would I code dexamethasone for the KdD regimen? KdD is not in SEER*Rx and it seems counterintuitive to code it for KdD and not for KRd. |
Code dexamethasone in KRd regimen (and any other regimen for multiple myeloma containing dexamethasone) as hormonal therapy. Please note that majority of the regimens for multiple myeloma are not in SEER*Rx currently. The SEER*Rx entry for KRd regimen was updated to indicate that dexamethasone should be coded. The change was done to correct the contradiction with the SEER manual which states, "Code the hormonal agent given as part of combination chemotherapy (e.g., R-CHOP), whether it affects the cancer cells or not" and the SEER*Rx entry for dexamethasone which directs to code it for multiple myeloma. |
2025 |
|
|
20250024 | Reportability/Histology--Adrenal Gland: Is a case of pheochromocytoma reportable? The adrenal resection that was sent out for expert review final diagnosis is: Pheochromocytoma Impression with comment: Benign Pheochromocytoma based on Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) of 4. |
Report pheochromocytoma (8700/3). According to WHO Classification of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Tumors, 5th edition, patients with pheochromocytomas are currently considered to have a lifelong risk of metastases and therefore conceptually they are all considered ‘malignant.’ |
2025 | |
|
|
20250025 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary? |
According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:
Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes? |
Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
