Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230011 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 liver biopsy diagnosed metastatic small cell carcinoma (SmCC) of the prostate following a 2018 radical prostatectomy treated diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.” This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4? |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M4 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. The guidance in the aforementioned SINQ entries still applies with the additional criteria of being diagnosed more than one year following the diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma, or subtype, of the prostate as stated in Rule M4 of the updated 2023 rules. Small cell carcinomas of the prostate are often diagnosed on follow-up TURP/biopsies; however, if a patient had a previous radical prostatectomy, the small cell carcinoma would be identified in a metstatic site and would still be a new prostate primary. This includes biopsy confirmed metastatic tumors only. It remains important to capture the two distinct histology types. |
2023 |
|
|
20230036 | Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is angiomyxoma (8841/1), such as aggressive angiomyxoma of vulva diagnosed in 2022, reportable? |
Do not report superficial angiomyxoma (8841/0) or aggressive angiomyxoma (8841/0). WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, defines deep (aggressive) angiomyoma as a benign, infiltrative, myxoid spindle cell neoplasm that occurs in deep soft tissue of the pelviperineal region. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230028 | Histology--Vulva: How is the histology coded for vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III)/Squamous cell carcinoma in situ from a pathology report of the vulva, 8070/2 for squamous cell carcinoma in situ or 8077/2 for VIN III? The rules do not discuss this particular situation. |
Assign 8077/2 for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, VIN 3 in this case. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) of the vulva are also known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV-associated. The term squamous cell carcinoma in situ is not recommended. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230031 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a 2022 diagnosis of right upper lobe non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) when the patient has a history acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020, followed by squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021? See Discussion. |
The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed). While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis? |
The patient's previous acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020 and squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021 were correctly abstracted as two primaries per rule M8 as they are in different rows in Table 3. The NSCLC, RUL (8046) diagnosed in 2022 would not be abstracted as a third primary because NSCLC is a broad category which includes all histologies in Table 3 (except for small cell carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumors (NET Tumors) 8041 and all subtypes), and because it was diagnosed less than 3 years after the 2021 squamous cell carcinoma, RML (8070). |
2023 |
|
|
20230020 | First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded for cases when surgery was planned but aborted due to extent of disease seen during planned procedure? See Discussion. |
Lung abnormality on imaging prompted diagnosis on subsequent biopsy and clinical staging was documented as cT1b N0 M0. There was an attempt at resection, but the patient was found to have chest wall involvement and the procedure was aborted. How would Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded in these types of scenarios when the surgery is aborted and the treatment plan changes due to the extension seen during surgery? |
For the example provided: For 2023 cases and forward, if no part of the surgery was performed, code Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) as code A000 or B000 (no surgical procedure of the primary site). Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 2 (surgery of the primary site was not recommended/performed because it was contraindicated due to patient risk factors (comorbid conditions, advanced age, progression of tumor prior to planned surgery, etc.). In contrast, if any part of the surgery was performed, assign the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) code that best reflects the extent of the surgery performed. Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 0 (surgery of the primary site was performed). Use text fields to record the details. For cases prior to 2023, apply the same approach using Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1290) instead of Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291). |
2023 |
|
|
20230047 | Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is a 2023 mandibular biopsy showing “severe squamous dysplasia with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion” reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2). |
Report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) on the basis of “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” "Severe dysplasia" is equivalent to "high grade dysplasia" in the Head and neck. As such, "severe squamous dysplasia" would be coded to 8077/2. However, in combination with the statement of "with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion,” report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) based on “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” The 2023 SEER Manual instructs us to code the behavior as malignant (/3) if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited, i.e., microinvasion. Use text fields to record the details. |
2023 |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
2023 |
|
|
20230007 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Appendix: Is low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with peritoneal spread followed by evidence of extraperitoneal metastatic disease reportable prior to 2022? See Discussion. |
In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN. Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis. In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary. It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive. Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable? |
LAMN diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 is not reportable even when it spreads or metastasizes according to our expert pathologist consultant. Spread of this neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. For this case to be reportable, the diagnosis must indicate “carcinoma” or “adenocarcinoma.” Pre-2022, LAMN is not reportable even when treated with surgery and chemotherapy. LAMN is reportable starting with cases diagnosed in 2022. |
2023 |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
|
20230032 | Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive reportable? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma. Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment? |
Your case is equivalent to encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-invasive (non-invasive EFVPTC) and is not reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021 or later even though it says "carcinoma." That is because the WHO assigned a behavior code of /1 to this entity (8349/1). NIFTP is assigned to the same histology and behavior code. |
2023 |
An official website of the United States government
