Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: Under the Terms that are Not Equivalent or Equal section (Urinary Equivalent Terms and Definitions) it indicates noninvasive is not equivalent to papillary urothelial carcinoma and one should code the histology documented by the pathologist. However, many pathologists use Ta as both the description of the stage and the histology. Should this note be amended? See Discussion.
The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.
In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.
Histologic type: Noninvasive.
Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.
Tumor configuration: Papillary.
The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?
Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?
Per the April 2019 update: Noninvasive; papillary urothelial carcinoma; flat urothelial carcinoma Note: Noninvasive is not equivalent to either papillary urothelial or flat urothelial carcinoma. Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist.
Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is endometrial atypical complex hyperplasia/borderline endometrial adenocarcinoma (FIGO 1), (mucinous type), (no invasion of myometrium) reportable?
Do not report this case based on the information provided. The actual diagnosis is somewhere between atypical hyerpplasia and carcinoma in situ. Do not report until/unless a more definitively reportable diagnosis is made.
Reportability--Kidney: Is congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma reportable for a newborn baby? See discussion.
2015 Rt kidney nephrectomy pathology states: congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma, tumor sz 5.9cm, tumor limited to kidney, extension into pelvicalyceal system, margin not applicable, LVI negative. Per PubMed.gov: (In newborns) among the low-grade malignant tumors, congenital mesoblastic nephromas can be successfully treated with simple nephrectomy. Per ScienceDirect: ...currently thought that cellular mesoblastic nephroma is actually a renal variant of infantile fibrosarcoma.
Do not report congenital mesoblastic nephroma (8960/1). Congenital mesoblastic mephromas are low-grade fibroblastic neoplasms of the infantile renal sinus according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. The WHO classification is the standard used to determine behavior and histology for entities not listed in ICD-O-3.
Histology--Ovary: What is the correct ICD-O-3 histology code for sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary?
Assign 8380/3. Sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma is a variant of endometrioid carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant.
Reportability--Prostate: According to the 2018 SEER Program Manual, a prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) III is not reportable, but is an atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) PIN 4 reportable?
ASAP is not reportable. Patients with ASAP found on needle biopsy will likely undergo another biopsy.
Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion.
This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.
Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. "Microtumor" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type.
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?
The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.
Primary Site: How should primary site be coded when there is an invasive tumor in one subsite and an in situ tumor in another subsite of the breast? See Discussion.
The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.
In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.
Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?
Code the subsite with the invasive tumor as the primary site when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites as stated in Appendix C, Breast Coding Guidelines, 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. This statement is unchanged from the previous version; however, the priority list was modified for coding a subsite when there is conflicting information.
The focus of the Solid Tumor Rules is to differentiate between single vs. multiple primaries and to assist with identifying the appropriate histology code. The site tables in the solid tumor rules are a reference only. The site-specific Coding Guidelines assist with additional considerations when abstracting cases.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home