Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180047 | Reportability--Kidney: Is a hybrid oncocytic tumor reportable? See Discussion. |
10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment: |
Do not report renal HTOC. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "the genetic studies seem to indicate that the chromosomal changes of chromophobe renal carcinoma are not found in the hybrid tumors." |
2018 |
|
|
20180083 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are abstracted and which M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with an invasive urothelial carcinoma tumor of the bladder, followed less than three years later by an invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma tumor of the bladder? See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis. However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years? |
Abstract two separate primaries using Solid Tumor Rules Urinary Sites Rule M13. While not stated in the urinary sites rules, these are separate histology codes in two different rows in Table 2 of the Rules. The initial histology is 8120 and the subsequent tumor is 8045 using Rule H4. Adding 8045 to Table 2 will cause issues. Small cell neuroendocrine in the bladder is very rare, extremely aggressive, and usually has a component of urothelial carcinoma. |
2018 |
|
|
20180112 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), NOS as this is not on the AJCC list of histologies? See Discussion. |
A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post? |
Code NSCLC to 8046/3. Do not change a histology code simply to assign TNM to the case. AJCC does not determine histology coding. While pathologists are no longer encouraged to use NSCLC, it does not mean the term and code are obsolete. NSCLC could be any number of histologies such as adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma. A diagnosis of NSCLC indicates that the initial exam of the tissue did not identify a more specific type of NSCLC. Additional immunohistochemical testing is needed to determine the histology. Update the case if better information becomes available from subsequent tests/review. When analyzing the data, researchers and physicians will be able to identify the cases where the pathologist was unable to or did not perform further testing to determine a specific histology which drives treatment and survival. |
2018 |
|
|
20180064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct? |
This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis. |
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 |
|
|
20180019 | Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion. |
The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported. Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations? 1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1). 2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children. 3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state. |
Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information. Examples 1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation. The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors. 2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1. 3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2. Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license. |
2018 |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180077 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue? Is p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive (8085)? See Discussion. |
Table 6 (Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids) in the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions lists both squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative as subtypes/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (the NOS histology, 8070). Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative are also listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 update table. Previous clarification from the standard setters regarding the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table indicated that histology codes 8085 and 8086 (HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma, respectively) included p16+ and p16- squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. Presumably, this clarification was made because p16 is a surrogate marker for HPV, and capturing whether a tumor is HPV-related or not has implications for staging for 2018 and later diagnoses. However, this clarification was not added to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table via errata, nor do the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions or Histology Coding Rules address this. Is a diagnosis of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive (8085)? If so, will this clarification be added to the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules? |
HPV-positive is not equivalent to HPV-mediated (p16+). According to the 2018 SEER Manual, HPV-type 16 refers to virus type and is different from p16 overexpression (p16+). HPV status is determined by tests designed to detect viral DNA or RNA. Tests based on ISH, PCR, RT-PCR technologies detect the viral DNA or RNA; whereas, the test for p16 expression, a surrogate marker for HPV, is IHC. HPV testing must be positive by viral detection tests in order to code histology as 8085. |
2018 |
|
|
20180069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion. |
Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade. |
There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior. The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present. |
2018 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
