Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190090 | Update to current manual/Extent of Disease/Summary Stage 2018--Fallopian Tube: How are behavior, EOD Primary Tumor, and Summary Stage 2018 coded for a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) of the fallopian tube? See Discussion. |
The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table lists serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (C57.0) with a behavior code of 2. The EOD Primary Tumor schema for Fallopian Tube shows STIC has an extension code of 100. It also maps code 100 to Summary Stage 2018 L (localized). Summary Stage 2018 for fallopian tube only documents that intraepithelial tumors are summary stage 0 (in situ). |
We are aware of the issue and have been in discussion with standard setters (SEER, NPCR, AJCC, and NAACCR). At this time, we recommend coding: Histology: 8441/2 Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor: 000 Summary Stage: 0 AJCC Clin/Path T would be 88, since all in situ lesions are not applicable. Edits will not allow you to have a 8441/2 with a T1. Also, EOD is not currently set up to derive the correct T value, unless you code 100. The change to address the issue will take effect in 2021. |
2019 |
|
|
20190089 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Rule H3 of the Solid Tumor Rules was added to capture non-small cell carcinoma modified by ambiguous terminology when the physician confirms the ambiguous term as the histologic diagnosis, also included in Coding Histology instruction 3.B. If differentiation and features are not included in the histology term, does instruction 2 takes precedence? See Discussion. |
For example, pathologic diagnosis is non-small cell carcinoma with squamous features. The medical oncologist describes this as squamous cell carcinoma and begins treatment regimen. As I interpret the rules, we would use code 8046, non-small cell carcinoma, because of instruction 2 and the fact that features is not included in the list of ambiguous terminology. |
Code 8046 using Coding Instruction 2 that says to: Code the histology described as differentiation or features/features of ONLY when there is a specific ICD-O code for the "NOS with ____ features" or "NOS with ____ differentiation." Note: Do not code differentiation or features when there is no specific ICD-O code. In the example, no ambiguous terminology is used. If ambiguous terminology is used indicating a more specific term, you would code to the specific histology. |
2019 |
|
|
20190088 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion. |
Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites. |
For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual: Assign code 1 When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual. |
2019 |
|
|
20190086 | EOD 2018/Primary tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise. * Code 000: In situ * Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth) * Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth) * Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth) |
Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level) Code 000: Level I (In situ) Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth) Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth) Code 300: Level IV (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth) Thank you for bringing this to our attention. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190085 | Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)? The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font. However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25. |
The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site. |
2019 |
|
|
20190084 | Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the histology be coded to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), BCR-ABL1-positive (9875/3) regardless of the quantitative analysis percentage of BCR-ABL1 that was detected? See Discussion. |
Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%. Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3. Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML? |
Code chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) BCR-ABL1-positive as 9875/3. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th edition, CML BCR-ABL1-positive is characterized by the chromosomal translocation t(9;22) which results in the formation of the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome containing the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. The diagnosis requires detection of the Ph chromosome and/or BCR-ABL1. If the mutation is detected, regardless of percentage, it is positive. Quantitative levels of BCR-ABL are used to monitor response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. |
2019 |
|
|
20190083 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be reported when metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate is diagnosed at the same time as adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. |
Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside. Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology? Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] per Rule M17 of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules 2018, as these are different histologies with different histology codes at the second number. Adenocarcinoma of prostate often manifests as a small cell carcinoma following treatment or as a progression of disease. It is important to capture these tumors as new primaries. |
2019 |
|
|
20190082 | Primary site/Histology--Peritoneum: What is the correct primary site code for peritoneal mesothelioma in a female? When I use C482, it seems that the fields are all geared towards primary peritoneal carcinoma with FIGO staging, etc. |
For mesothelioma, NOS (9050) and epithelioid mesothelioma (9052) of the peritoneum for females, assign C481, C482, or C488 as appropriate based on the site of origin in the medical documentation. The Primary Peritoneal Ca schema is assigned and you will need to complete the SSDIs for FIGO staging, CA-125 PreTx Interpretation, and Residual Tumor Volume Post Cytoreduction. If the histology is 9051 or 9053 with primary site of C481, C482, or C488 for females, the Retroperitoneum schema is assigned. The only SSDI for this schema is Bone Invasion. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190081 | Race: How is race coded for a patient who self-reports as white? In the Family History portion of the genetics consult, it states the maternal family is of mixed European and Cherokee descent; the paternal side is of mixed German/mixed European descent. Is race coded as Race 1: 03-American Indian and Race 2: 01-White, or as 01-White according to self-report by the patient? |
Self-reported information is the highest priority for coding race. That is because the race information for the U.S. population comes from census data and that information is self-reported. For national cancer statistics, in order for the numerator (cancer cases) and the denominator (population) to be comparable, use self-reported race information whenever it is available. We will add this clarification to the SEER manual. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190080 | Update to current manual/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes--Melanoma: Can the operative report be used to assess margins if there is no residual melanoma on the wide excision and no margins stated, or if distance is not stated on the pathology report when there is residual melanoma? See Discussion. |
1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins? 2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell? 3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now. |
1. You may take margin information from the operative report if it is missing from the pathology report when assigning the surgery codes for skin.
2. The rule applies to any skin malignancy for which the skin surgery codes apply. 3. SEER, CoC, NPCR, NCRA, NAACCR, and the Canadian registries participated in this decision. SEER is publishing this SINQ question for reference. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
