SEER Inquiry System - Search

The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12.  We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented.  If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation.  We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3).

January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A).

Patient was diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, later classified as hairy cell leukemia-variant.

Right cervical node biopsy in 2020 proved HCL-v and a subsequent 2021 right tongue base biopsy showed DLBCL. The tongue base biopsy path includes the comment, patient has history of HCL-v, but the morphology and flow cytology features are different from the patient's previous right cervical node biopsy. This DLBCL likely represents a second de novo lymphoma, but cannot exclude an unusual transformation of the prior HCL-v.

Per Heme Rule M7, abstract a single primary when a more specific histology is diagnosed after an NOS if the Heme DB confirms the same primary. The histology code for HCL-v, 9591/3 is a non-specific code, but it seems like a specific histology. The Heme Calculator does say 9591 and 9680 are the same primary, but we are unsure if that is correct for this case of HCL-v followed by DLBCL.

While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755.

Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755.

Currently, First Course Therapy instruction for expectant management (also referred to as active surveillance, watchful waiting, etc.) instructs one to code 0 or 00 (not done) for all data items when the physician opts for expectant management.

We find that the treatment decisions can be driven by the patient, physician, or combination of both patient and physician depending on the options presented.

Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?