Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20200006 | Reportability--Retina: Is a diagnosis of retinal astrocytoma reportable? See Discussion. |
There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for a which resulted in abstractors assigning the malignant astrocytoma, NOS code. These lesions were previously called but we are seeing the new terminology more frequently. |
Report retinal astrocytoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Eye, 4th edition, lists astrocytoma, NOS as 9400/3 with astrocytic hamartoma of the retina as a synonym. You may receive a site/type edit (IF25) which can be overridden. The changes in terminology, codes, etc. proposed in WHO 4th Ed Eye book were implemented for cases diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward. Apply this to retina astrocytomas and do not accession cases diagnosed with this histology prior to 1/1/2018. |
2020 |
|
20200054 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion? Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary? |
Both examples are multiple primaries. Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart. Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing. The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide. |
2020 |
|
20200055 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Should a case with treatment delayed due to COVID-19 be abstracted as one or two primaries? It is uncertain if the invasive tumor would be a new tumor, or deeper extension/disease progression from the original tumor. See Discussion. |
11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.) 12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. 1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020). 7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision. 8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision). 8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ. 9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive. |
Abstract a single primary using the Solid Tumor Rules for melanoma. Report this melanoma as invasive (/3) as documented in the information from 8/20/2020. The treatment delay does not influence the number of primaries to be reported. Registries in SEER regions: Report the COVID-related information as directed in the COVID-19 Abstraction Guidelines, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/covid-19/. |
2020 |
|
20200057 | Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion. |
Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32. |
Assign code 8020/3. SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms are newly identified. WHO has not proposed an ICD-O code as of yet. Our pathology experts suggest coding to undifferentiated carcinoma until they are better classified. |
2020 |
|
20200035 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion. |
Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date. There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term. How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection. |
In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by "differental considerations." If that is not possible, given the context and usage, "differential considerations" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI. |
2020 |
|
20200088 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an inconsistency between the histologies listed as deleted in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and the obsolete histologies in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB)? See Discussion. |
While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2. While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade. Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010. |
Follow the Heme DB to determine which codes are obsolete as of 2010. These histologies were made obsolete based on the 2010 WHO Hematopoietic book and confirmation with physicians. The official changes from ICD-O-3 were not implemented until ICD-O-3.2 Also, edits will not allow these histologies to be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The ICD-O tables were based on documentation from IARC ICD-O committee and may differ from practices in North America. |
2020 |
|
20200076 | Reportability/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Kidney: Should clarification (Notes) be added to Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules regarding the use of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (8312) as these histologies conflict with the ICD-O-3.2? See Discussion. |
First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021). Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology? This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, use ICD-O-3.2 to determine reportability. Use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries to report and the histology to code for tumors that are reportable. Do not use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine reportability. ICD-O-3.2 was implemented by the North American standard setters as of 1/1/2021 and it is the basis for reportability for cases diagnosed as of 1/1/21. See 1.a on page 6 in the 2021 SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/SPCSM_2021_MainDoc.pdf WHO 4th edition Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed ICD-O code 8323/1 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. This has not been approved for implementation by the standard setters. Continue assigning 8323/3 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. Sarcomatoid RCC is listed as a synonym for RCC 8312/3. This is correct per WHO and our SME. Do NOT code sarcomatoid RCC to 8318/3. |
2020 |
|
20200024 | Reportability/Histology--Fallopian tube: Is germ cell neoplasia in situ reportable? If so, is the histology and behavior 9064/2? See Discussion. |
Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation). |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ as 9064/2. Override the site/type edit. |
2020 |
|
20200018 | Reportability: Is ASIN-H (high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia) equivalent to anal intraepithelial neoplasia, III (AIN III)? |
High-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (ASIN-H) is synonynous with anal intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (AIN III). |
2020 | |
|
20200047 | Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded "8" for Ovary? See Discussion. |
This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice. |
The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate. SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary. |
2020 |