Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250004 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of myeloid stem cell disorder or myeloid stem cell neoplasm reportable when the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
Pathologists are increasingly using the terms "myeloid stem cell disorder" and "myeloid stem cell neoplasm" to describe reportable myeloid neoplasms. If the pathologist uses these terms and indicates the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms such as myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), should this be accessioned as a reportable primary? Example: The 01/2023 peripheral blood shows high grade myeloid stem cell disorder, and the differential diagnosis includes chronic myelomonocytic leukemia(CMML) and AML. The patient refused further work-up and expired several days later. No additional information is available. |
Report the case when the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms in the absence of additional information. We are unable to provide general instructions for provisional diagnoses as each situation will need to be reviewed and assessed individually when no further work-up information is available.
Assign myeloid leukemia, NOS (9860/3) to the case described in the example. Assign a generic histology code because a specific histology code cannot be assigned when there are several differential diagnoses. Since the differential diagnoses include a chronic and an acute leukemia, code as myeloid leukemia, NOS since it is not clear if this is chronic or acute. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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? |
Updated February 2026 For cases diagnosed 2025 and later: Assign behavior /1 for solitary fibrous tumor unless stated to be malignant or have metastasized. 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 |
|
|
20250006 | Reportability/Histology--Appendix: Is carcinoid of the appendix reportable? If yes, when did this take effect? |
Report carcinoid, NOS of the appendix. As of 01/01/2015, the ICD-O-3 behavior code changed from /1 to /3. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Are SMARCA4- deficient malignant neoplasms (8020/3) valid for esophagus or other sites besides lung? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20200057 states to use SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms newly identified to use 8020/3 in this example for lung. The annotated histology list shows this histology followed by (C34._) for 2023 forward. An esophagus pathology states the following, "The histologic features and immunohistochemical profile are those of a SMARCA2/SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm." Is the 8020/3 histology valid for esophagus or other sites? |
Assign 8020/3 for SMARCA4- deficient malignant neoplasms of the esophagus. The WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, lists undifferentiated carcinoma as 8020/3. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the esophagus is characterized by the frequent loss of SMARCA4 or SMARCA2 by immunohistochemistry. SINQ 20200057 was updated in August 2025 and assigns code 8044/3 for Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT). The 2025 Solid Tumor Manual includes SMARCA4-deficient or SMARCB1-deficient tumors for thoracic and sinonasal sites (8044/3). Assigning histology to other individual sites should be on a case-by-case basis. |
2025 |
|
|
20250010 | Immunotherapy/Other Therapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the elimination of immunosuppression treatment coded as other treatment? An example is when a post-transplant patient develops a malignant myeloproliferative neoplasm that subsides when immunosuppression drugs are stopped. |
Do not code as a treatment. Record the cessation of immunosuppressive drug treatment in text to explain the patient’s change in disease status. |
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 |
|
|
20250029 | EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Oropharynx: Is code 550 missing “< equal to 6 cm” in the data item EOD Regional Nodes for Oropharynx HPV-Associated, Version 9? Otherwise, bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes with extranodal extension (ENE) that are >6 cm could fit into 550 OR 650. |
Code 550 is missing “< equal to 6 cm.” In addition, code 650 should include ipsilateral lymph nodes as well. Revised codes: Code 550 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, < equal to 6 cm WITH clinical evidence of ENE Code 650 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Ipsilateral, Bilateral or Contralateral lymph nodes > 6 cm WITH or WITHOUT clinical evidence of ENE These changes will be implemented in Version 3.4 (October 2026). We apologize for the error. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250001 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Are the following terms and diagnoses synonymous with endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and therefore reportable? 1. Atypical glandular epithelium 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia 4. EIN/complex atypical hyperplasia (EIN/CAH) or focal EIN/CAH (on biopsy but the resection pathology or operative note states no EIN/CAH/atypical hyperplasia) |
We have questions regarding reportability of some terms/diagnoses after a review of EIN cases back to 2021. While some seem synonymous with EIN, others have different terms in the pathology report though the physician is treating as if they have the diagnosis. 1. Atypical glandular epithelium Scenario: Endometrium biopsy with ablation performed at Facility A on 8/7/2024 showed atypical glandular epithelium. Patient was sent to Facility B where the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) on 9/20/2024 showed other reactive fibrosis and obliterated architecture compatible with history of ablation. Is atypical glandular epithelium synonymous with and coded as EIN? 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia Scenario: Endometrium biopsy showed isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. Then Facility B did TAH/BSO that showed no evidence of high grade dysplasia, atypical hyperplasia, or carcinoma. 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia Scenario: Endometrial biopsy pathology states simple hyperplasia without atypia and the TAH/BSO is either negative or has the same histology; however, the treating physician is stating EIN. 4. EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH Scenario: Biopsy showed EIN/CAH but the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) pathology or the Mirena IUD treatment operative note states no EIN/CAH/Atypical hyperplasia. Are these reportable, similar to an in situ when the re-excision lumpectomy or mastectomy is negative or no residual disease? |
Reportability for EIN became effective in 2021. 1. Do not report atypical glandular epithelium. Atypical glandular epithelium, also referred to as atypical glandular cells (AGC), refers to abnormal looking cells that may be found in the tissue lining the inside of the endometrium or the cervix. While not malignant (in situ or invasive), they can be associated with a range of lesions in the female reproductive system. 2. Do not report isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. The NCI data dictionary defines atypia as an abnormality in cells in tissue. Report the case when further defined as atypical hyperplasia. 3. Do not report simple hyperplasia without atypia. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines endometrial hyperplasia without atypia as a proliferation of endometrial glands of irregular size and shape without significant atypia. There is no ICD-O code for this term. Simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia is an acceptable related term for endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Pathology has priority over a physician statement. 4. Report EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH (8380/2) based on the biopsy. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines EAH/EIN as a simultaneous change of epithelial cytology and an increased number of endometrial glands in a defined region. The preferred term is atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium; terms not recommended include complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia; simple atypical endometrial hyperplasia; endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.
|
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
