Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20230067 | First Course Treatment/Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Breast: How is Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery coded when initially there is a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) and an intramammary node removed followed a month later by an axillary dissection for a right breast primary? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the right breast from a core biopsy on 04/2023. Subsequent bilateral mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy proves one positive sentinel node and one negative intramammary node. One month later there is a completion axillary node dissection with 15 nodes negative for malignancy. Per previous SINQ 20190074, the initial mastectomy and sentinel node excision with intramammary node removal should be coded as Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 6. It is unclear how the resulting axillary dissection should be recorded in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. There is no code for sentinel node biopsy and 3, 4, or 5 at same time (code 6) PLUS an additional subsequent axillary dissection. Please provide coding instructions for Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive, Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery in this scenario. |
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Assign code 7, Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at different times. In this case, the SLNBx (code 2) preceded the regional node dissection (code 5: 4 or more regional lymph nodes removed), i.e., procedures performed in separate surgical events. Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined: Assign code 98, Sentinel lymph nodes were biopsied, but the number is unknown. In this case, only the results were provided. Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive: Assign code 01, Sentinel nodes are positive (code exact number of nodes positive). In this case, there was one positive sentinel node. |
2023 |
|
20230071 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Cervix: How is histology coded for a 2023 endocervical adenocarcinoma negative for high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) on Pap smear and strongly positive for p16 on biopsy? See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor Rules indicate p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated/-independent. In this case, we do not know whether the HR-HPV test was done on cytologically malignant cells, or on benign cervical cells. It may be impossible to tell unless 100% of the cytology specimen is malignant, but we will not have access to that information. Also, HR-HPV testing is routine on Pap smears, so this testing does not mean the tumor cells specifically harbor HPV. |
Assign histology as adenocarcinoma, HPV-associated (8483/3) as designated in Table 17, Uterine Cervix Histologies, of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that p16 immunohistochemistry is an effective (yet flawed) indirect test for HR-HPV infection, in line with the STRs that state p16 is a valid test to determine HPV status and can be used to code HPV-associated and HPV-independent histologies. In this scenario, "negative for high-risk human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) on Pap smear" would be cytology-based, and may have missed cytologically malignant cells. A subsequent, more definitive biopsy was performed and was found to be strongly positive for p16, therefore, the tumor should be coded as 8483/3. |
2023 |
|
20230044 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Breast: What pathology report descriptions are permissible to use in coding the Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect data item? See Discussion. |
1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%? 2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used? For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions? |
1) Do not infer the percent of viable tumor if only percent of necrosis is provided. For the example, assign code 6 when Neoadjuvant therapy was completed and the treatment effect in the breast is stated only as “Present". 2) Do not use the residual cancer burden (RCB) score from the pathology report to code the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect field for breast cancer. We do not have a crosswalk from RCB to neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect. RCB index is an accurate and reliable tool to assess patient prognosis. RCB is estimated from routine pathologic sections of the primary breast tumor site and the regional lymph nodes after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy. The data item Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect records information on the primary tumor only. Document information in a text field in both examples. |
2023 |
|
20230051 | First Course Treatment/Surgical Margins of the Primary Site--Melanoma: Is margin status positive or negative when the lesion “approximates” margins? This was noted in the pathology report comment on a malignant melanoma in-situ shave biopsy. Follow-up with physicians is not possible in this situation. |
Assign margin status as “positive” when stated as approximates margins as recommended by our expert pathologists. Approximating means coming right up to inked margin without the margin transecting the tumor. |
2023 | |
|
20230021 | Histology--Soft Tissue: How is histology coded for malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement diagnosed on left shoulder excision? See Discussion. |
March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation. Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement? |
NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm is a newly identified variant of sarcoma; however, WHO has not yet proposed a specific ICD-O code for this rare neoplasm. Code to spindle cell sarcoma (8801/3). WHO defines NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm as an emerging group of molecularly defined rare soft tissue tumors that span a wide group of morphologies and histological grades, and are most often characterized by a spindle cell phenotype among other characteristics. |
2023 |
|
20230060 | Histology--Urinary: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of bladder carcinoma with a mix of different urothelial carcinoma subtypes? See Discussion. |
The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.” It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.” The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis. |
Code histology as urothelial carcinoma, NOS (8120/3). Our subject matter expert advises that WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize mixed urinary histologies; therefore, has not assigned an ICD-O code for urothelial mixed with multiple variants. Only pure variants are coded as they have a different prognosis from those that are mixed. According to WHO, invasive urothelial carcinoma is remarkable for its diversity of morphological appearances and a single lesion can display an admixture of conventional urothelial and various well-defined histological subtypes. |
2023 |
|
20230009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply? See Discussion. |
Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2. All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule. Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies? |
Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms. Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis. Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates. Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that. A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included. |
2023 |
|
20230073 | First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Liver/Intrahepatic Bile Ducts: For a liver/intrahepatic bile duct primary, is an alcohol embolization the same thing as a percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI)? See Discussion. |
For C220-C221 primaries, Surgery of Primary Site includes code A150 for Alcohol tumor destruction (percutaneous ethanol injection/intratumoral injection of alcohol/alcohol ablation). The SEER and STORE manuals also indicate that alcohol embolization should be coded as Other Therapy, code 1. We are trying to determine whether alcohol embolization should be coded under Surgery of Primary Site or Other Therapy. |
Code alcohol ablation under Surgery of Primary Site 2023. Code alcohol embolization as Other Therapy when tumor embolization is performed using alcohol as the embolizing agent. Alcohol ablation, also known as an ultrasound-guided percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI); is treatment that involves injecting concentrated alcohol directly into the tumor. Embolization uses special techniques to close off blood flow by introducing special medications or using other techniques designed to block blood vessels. Types of embolization are arterial embolization as with alcohol (ethanol), chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Refer to the current SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual when assigning surgery and embolization procedures. |
2023 |
|
20230029 | Primary Site--Skin: Are perianal skin primaries within 5 cm of the anus coded as perianal skin (C44.5) or anus (C21.0). See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter. We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445. I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. |
Code primary site based on the site of origin as determined by the physicians. If the physicians state the site of origin is anus, code anus; the same as with skin. As you state, squamous cell cancer of sites coded to C44 is not reportable. The AJCC instruction for physicians to stage perianal neoplasms within 5 cm of the anus using the Anus chapter does not change cancer registry instructions for coding primary site, nor does it affect cancer registry reportability instructions. |
2023 |
|
20230048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Uterine Corpus: How is histology coded for an epithelioid and myxoid leiomyosarcoma of the myometrium? See Discussion. |
Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma. Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs. Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma. Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3). Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar. Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor? |
Assign code 8891/3 (epithelioid leiomyosarcoma) as cells were described as have an epithelioid morphology; whereas, myxoid was used as a descriptive term and not a specific histologic type. |
2023 |