Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200002 | Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable. |
PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list. |
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 |
|
|
20210015 | Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion. |
Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia). |
The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease. . |
2021 |
|
|
20210008 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H6 be used to code the histology to lentigo maligna melanoma? See Discussion. |
Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule? |
Solid Tumor rule H6 is the same as MP/H rule H8. We found registrars have problems understanding reportable terminology and the corresponding ICD-O-3 histology code for lentigo maligna melanoma. It is included in H6 to capture cases where the registrar may not stop at H1. We will add another note to H1 instructing users to continue through the rules if the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210024 | Primary Site--Vulva: What is the primary site of patient with an excision of a left vulvar cystic mass showing focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on 11/06/2020? See Discussion. |
Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment) Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM. Margins: Negative. Comment Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised. 12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion. PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management. |
Code the primary site to vulva. Use text fields to record the details. According to the WHO classification, several types of primary vulvar mammary-like carcinoma have been reported. It is rare and is thought to arise from specialized anogenital mammary-like glands within the vulva. It does not arise from ectopic breast tissue and is does not represent metastatic breast carcinoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210012 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021/Multiple Primaries/)--Lung: How many primaries should be reported and what M rule applies when a diagnosis of presumed adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the left lung follows a known diagnosis of progressive multifocal malignant adenocarcinoma in the right lung? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities. There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment. While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case. |
Abstract a single primary using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rule M9. The 2014 and 2016 R lung tumors were pathologically confirmed; it is not stated if they were resected. Follow up after XRT noted stable disease but no indication of NED. Subsequent right lung tumor is also the same primary. The issue is the assumed left lung adenocarcinoma in situ. It is not clear how long the left lung nodules were present, but they appeared to be stable as well and only diagnosed as a malignancy based on treatment response. At this time M9 applies and the left lung AIS is not a separate primary. We have discussed at length with lung pathology experts the issue of determining multiple primaries. Identifying and diagnosing lung tumors has become easier with new technology and the result is patients are being diagnosed with multiple lung tumors. Some lung experts feel we are under-reporting lung primaries but all noted the many issues with creating rules for consistency. |
2021 |
|
|
20210014 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a 4/2019 diagnosis of left upper lobe (LUL) adenosquamous carcinoma (left lingula mass biopsy: adenosquamous carcinoma; LUL lung biopsy: pulmonary adenocarcinoma, stated to be a collision tumor and single primary per the Tumor Board), treated with radiation followed by an enlarging LUL mass in 7/2020 found to be squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary. 5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate 10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring. 06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor. 07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic. |
Abstract two primaries: 8560 and 8140 using rule M6. One of the original tumors with adenosquamous now shows only residual SCC following XRT. PD-L-1 is not used to determine multiple primaries. Assuming three tumors (the post-XRT SCC is not a new tumor but residual from one of the adenosquamous tumors) there are two primaries: 8560 and 8140 per M6. For collision tumors, each histology identified in the tumor is used to determine multiple primaries. |
2021 |
|
|
20210074 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate? |
Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210056 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a left breast simple mastectomy identifies focal Paget disease of the nipple and 12 axillary nodes positive for metastatic lobular carcinoma (no primary lobular breast tumor identified)? |
Abstract two primaries, one lobular carcinoma (8520/3) and another one Paget disease of the breast (8540/3) using the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M9: Abstract multiple primaries when the diagnosis is Paget disease with underlying tumor which is NOT duct. Example: Paget disease of the nipple with underlying lobular carcinoma are multiple primaries. Additionally, Table 2, Histology Combination Codes, Note 2 states: Lobular carcinoma and Paget are separate primaries (see Lobular carcinoma and any histology in Table 3 with exception of duct carcinoma/carcinoma NST/DCIS (and subtypes/variants) 8500 and Paget disease, in situ and invasive). While not identified in the pathology of the mastectomy, the lobular carcinoma is likely underlying as it was identified in the axillary lymph nodes. The 2021 SEER Manual states: If the only pathologic specimen is from a metastatic site, code the appropriate histology code and the malignant behavior code (/3). The primary site and its metastatic site(s) have the same histology. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210046 | Reportability--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation synonymous with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, fibrosarcomatous, and therefore reportable for diagnosis year 2021 and forward? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 2021 skin excision showing an atypical spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, DFSP, NOS has a behavior code of /1, and DFSP, fibrosarcomatous has a behavior code of /3. There is no code listed for DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Transformation is not included as a term that can/cannot be used for the Other Sites Schema, but this type of DFSP is often described as DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. How do we code DFSP when transformation is used to describe fibrosarcomatous? |
Report DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation as it is synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition, fibrosarcomatous DFSP is a variant of DFSP and that fibrosarcomatous transformation is seen in approximately 10% of DFSP cases. It is characterized by an often abrupt transition of DFSP. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
