| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240066 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for a pathologic diagnosis of “Follicular lymphoma, diffuse pattern grade 3A of 3, equivalent to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (germinal center cell type)” when later referenced clinically as follicular lymphoma grade 3A? See Discussion. |
The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist. |
Assign histology as DLBCL (9680/3) as supported by the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition. It is consistent with how it would have been coded in the 4th edition. The Heme Manual and Database currently are based on the 4th edition. Physicians are using the 5th edition blue book, whereas the cancer registry field is not yet at this time. Regarding the Heme Manual and Database, this type of scenario is not covered because it is part of the 5th edition WHO Blue Book. The database cannot be updated until the 5th edition is approved for implementation (2026). |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240054 | EOD 2018/Primary Tumor--Breast: We are having difficulty deciding when we can or cannot use physician-assigned TNM staging to code EOD data items if the medical record or hospital abstract documentation is unclear. As a central registry, we are unable to query physicians for clarification. Please advise what is a “discrepancy” in the EOD General Instructions to “Use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record.” See Discussion. |
We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines? A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes? |
Use all information available in the medical record. EOD is a combination of the most precise clinical and pathological documentation of the extent of disease as instructed in the EOD 2018 General Instructions, Extent of Disease section. EOD 2018 General Instructions, General Coding Instructions section advises to use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record. When there is doubt that the documentation in the medical record is complete, code the EOD corresponding to the physician staging. A discrepancy can exist within the medical record when the information in the chart is unclear, incomplete, or conflicting, for example, the TNM staging from pathology differs from the medical oncologist’s TNM staging. In the scenario provided, use the medical oncologist stage information that takes into account imaging and exam findings. Based on the stage cT4 N3b, assign EOD Primary Tumor: 400 Extensive skin involvement WITHOUT a stated diagnosis of inflammatory carcinoma WITH or WITHOUT dermal lymphatic filtration EOD Regional Nodes: 600 Internal mammary node(s), ipsilateral, clinically apparent (On imaging or clinical exam) WITH axillary (level I, II, or III) lymph node(s), ipsilateral including infraclavicular |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240077 | 2024 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Retroperitoneum: What is the primary site code for a final diagnosis of endometrioid adenocarcinoma from a biopsy of a right retroperitoneal mass? See Discussion. |
An 80-year-old post-menopausal female (status post hysterectomy for benign reasons) presents with a retroperitoneal mass on imaging. The pre-operative imaging shows the cervix and uterus are absent. Patient undergoes a robotic left salpingo-oophorectomy with biopsy of the retroperitoneal mass. |
Code Primary Site to C480 (retroperitoneum). Endometrial tissue may "break away” from the uterus and implant throughout the pelvic and abdominal cavities. This can occur in patients who suffer from endometriosis. This tissue remains behind when surgical removal of the uterus is done. Common sites of implantation are colon, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, and bladder. These cells may become malignant. When the uterus is no longer present (patient had surgical removal), code the site where the carcinoma was identified. The site-morphology combination of C480 and 8380/3 was designated as an unlikely site-morphology combination by the Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, as this is a rare type of tumor. Assign a value of 1 in the Over-ride Site/Type [2030] data item in order to pass the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) edit. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240073 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs), Rule M6, says to abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor. Does that 60-day interval apply to the original diagnosis date, or to the latest recurrence? See Discussion. |
10/2017 Bladder cancer diagnosed as invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/3) (submucosal invasion). 12/2017 Surveillance scope and transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) finds “recurrent” bladder tumor, non-invasive papillary urothelial bladder carcinoma (8130/2) - same primary per 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology, Rule M6, (both papillary urothelial bladder carcinomas). 4/2018 Radical nephrectomy found focally invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) in the renal pelvis. Is this a new primary per 2018 and forward STR, Rule M6, because it was more than 60 days since the 12/2017 in situ bladder recurrence? Or would one compare the 2018 diagnosis to the original invasive bladder tumor in 10/2017, and continue on to Rule M11, which says to abstract a single primary for urothelial carcinomas in multiple organs, regardless of behavior? SINQ #20120080 said to compare to the original diagnosis and disregard intervening recurrences, but that pertained to the 2007 MP/H rules. Does this still apply for 2018 forward? STR, Rule M10, Note 3, states when there is a recurrence within three years of diagnosis, the “clock” starts over. The time interval is calculated from the date of last recurrence. Comparing each recurrence for urothelial carcinomas using Rule M6 could result in over-counting them. Can the instructions on how to calculate the 60-day interval be clarified in Rule M6? |
Abstract a single primary for this scenario based on Urinary Sites STRs. 10/2017 and 12/2017 bladder diagnoses: Single primary (Rule M15: Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions). This interval is not indicative of recurrence as there is no clinically disease free period on follow-up. Use the Multiple Primary Rules as written to determine whether a subsequent tumor is a new primary or a recurrence as stated in the General Instructions. The only exception is when a pathologist compares slides from the subsequent tumor to the “original” tumor and documents the subsequent tumor is a recurrence of the previous primary. Never code multiple primaries based only on a physician’s statement of “recurrence” or “recurrent.” 12/2017 (bladder) and 4/2018 diagnoses (renal pelvis): Single primary (Rule M11: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs; behavior is irrelevant.) |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240047 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is “high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm” of the endometrium reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient had a 2023 endometrial polypectomy and curettage with final diagnosis of “at least serous intraepithelial neoplasia arising in association with an endometrial polyp.” Diagnosis comment states, “There are multiple tissue fragments with highly atypical glandular lining consistent with a high-grade serous neoplasm. There are focal areas which are suspicious, but not conclusive, for stromal invasion.” Subsequent hysterectomy and BSO showed no residual carcinoma. According to previous SINQ 20210043, serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (STIN) is reportable when stated to be high grade. Does the same logic apply to a similar neoplasm in the endometrium and/or endometrial polyp? |
Report high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm of the endometrium. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240011 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Other Sites: Other Sites Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) requires site designations; can sites be added? See Discussion. |
There are multiple possible entries (rows) for a tumor with a neuroendocrine component and non-neuroendocrine component, but these rows do not specify which primary sites are applicable. Row 1 (Combined small cell carcinoma, 8045) seems applicable to a prostate primary, but not to a GI primary since GI primaries are now generally referred to as MiNENs (mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine tumors), but Table 2 does not provide any instructions regarding how to determine the difference between 8045 and 8154 (or 8244). For SEER Workshop Case 03 (mixed prostate case), many users selected 8154 or 8244 as the mixed histology code per Table 2, but these histology codes are not listed as applicable in Table 3 (Prostate Histologies). Per the WHO Blue Books, these histologies are not listed as applicable to the prostate. How are registrars to determine the correct mixed code without site designations, especially if they don't have access to the WHO Blue Book or to a pathologist who may be able to clarify the codes? |
Sites may be added to certain combinations when indicated by ClinCORE review for Cancer PathCHART. Please note some sites were added in the 2024 update as a result of PathCHART review. A newly-formed Solid Tumor Editorial Board and its subgroups are currently working to evaluate the Solid Tumor Manual and make recommendations on ways to improve the structure and formatting of the manual and its content. Follow the rules and instructions in the Other Sites STRs when assigning combination histology codes. Histology Coding Rules Use the Histology Coding Rules when assigning combination codes. Coding Histology Information Use this section that includes the mixed histology (Table 2) and site-specific histology tables (Tables 3-23) for one or more histologies within a single tumor. Do not use this section in place of the Histology Coding Rules. While site-specific histology tables, based on current WHO Classification of Tumors books, have been added to Other Sites STRs, not all site groups have individual histology tables; coding may require the use of ICD-O and updates. The histology tables in Other Sites STRs include additional coding instructions and notes to assign the correct ICD-O code when appropriate. The tables are not meant to be all-inclusive; rather they are intended to address difficult coding situations to facilitate the assignment of the correct histology code. Table 2: Mixed and Combination Codes Instructions Once you have identified the histology terms and have been instructed to use Table 2 by the Histology Coding Rules, compare the terms in the diagnosis to the terms in Column 1. When the terms match, use the combination code listed in Column 2. Use adenocarcinoma mixed subtypes 8255 as a “last resort” code. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240034 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Skin: Is keratoacanthoma (8071/3) of the skin reportable? This code is also for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), keratinizing. In the 2024 SEER manual, 8071/3 falls under the not reportable section of skin (outside of specific sites). |
Do not report keratoacanthoma of the skin (8071/3). The preferred term for keratoacanthoma is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), keratinizing, NOS. According to the 2024 SEER Manual, Reportability section, SCC of skin (8050-8084) is not reportable. |
2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240033 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Stomach: Is a carcinoid tumor of the stomach diagnosed on 01/01/2023, on a patient who was followed up by Gastrointestinal (GI) and was found to have another stomach carcinoid on 02/01/2024, one primary or two? See Discussion. |
Based on the Solid Tumor Rules, we would make this two since it is over one year. According to a previous SINQ question 20110046, we are to code this as one primary. We see patients come back with multiple carcinoid tumors over the years and would like clarification. |
Stop at the first rule that applies which is M12. Per note 3: When it is unknown/not documented whether the patient had a recurrence, use date of diagnosis to compute the time interval. This means there are two primaries. There is a genetic syndrome that causes multiple carcinoid tumors in the GI tract, per our GI expert, and they should be treated as new primaries per M12. SINQ 20110046 describes a unique situation whereby the subject matter expert felt that the occurrence of multiple tumors was due to an unknown underlying condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240020 | Histology/Behavior: There are currently no codes available on the ICD-10-CM casefinding list for several of the site-specific intraepithelial neoplasias (8077/2). Will there be an update with additional codes for these sites that currently do not have codes to enable casefinding for these? See the table below.
|
Many of these terms are not specified in the codes and definitions in ICD-10-CM. This is because ICD-10-CM does not have the same granularity as ICD-O-3.2. There are a few sites where intraepithelial neoplasia II and/or III are mentioned. Even though ICD-O-3.2 classifies these as /2 (in-situ), for the intraepithelial neoplasia that are listed in ICD-10-CM, Grade II is designated as benign, while Grade III is designated as in-situ. It is not clear if medical coding will change the Grade II to an in-situ code. All the in-situ codes (except cervix) are included in the casefinding list. Grade III is included with the in-situ codes; however, there is no guarantee that medical coders will code them as in situ. High grades are coded as in-situ in ICD-10-CM. For those where there is no specific intraepithelial neoplasia code, the benign codes will cover any benign lesion for that site. This would make for a lot of review using the codes for casefinding. Most of the benign codes were removed from the casefinding list a couple of years ago to make it more manageable. Use the casefinding list as a guide for these neoplasias. It is not the most definitive source due to the lack of specificity of ICD-10-CM. It is not possible to map every single histology to a specific code. It is also not known how medical coders across the U.S. are coding these neoplasias. For that reason, pathology should remain the foremost casefinding resource used. The casefinding team will need to review the prepared list below and determine what codes to add. Any updates will be incorporated in the FY2025 updates (October 2024.)
|
2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240059 | Update to the Current Manual/SEER*RSA--SEER Site-specific Factor 1: The 2024 SEER Manual and SEER*RSA say that Codes 10-51 are hierarchical; use the highest code that applies (10 is highest, 51 is lowest). Should the guidance say that 51 is highest, 10 is lowest since code 10 is a HPV negative p16 test? |
Assign the highest code with 51 as the highest and 10 the lowest when there is more than one test performed with differing results. The SEER Manual will be updated in the 2025 release. SEER*RSA will be updated in a future release, version 3.3 in 2026, as version 3.2 has been updated for 2025. |
2024 |
Home
