Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20240041 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an optic nerve meningioma reportable if stated to arise in the “intraorbital segment” of the optic nerve meninges? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed on imaging with enhancement along the right optic nerve intraorbital segment, displacing the optic nerve, most consistent with optic nerve sheath meningioma. Extracranial meningiomas are rare, however SINQ 20230052 does contain an exception for reportability in a different head and neck site because it is not an intracranial location. It is unclear if this portion of the meninges surrounding the intraorbital optic nerve is still “intracranial” and thus reportable. |
Report optic nerve sheath meningioma arising in the intraorbital segment. The optic nerve contains four segments, of which intraorbital is one. The WHO Classification of Eye Tumors, 4th edition, defines meningioma as a neoplasm originating from the meningothelial cells of the optic nerve leptomeninges. According to the Table 3 of the Non-malignant Solid Tumor Rules, all portions of the optic are reportable and meningiomas arising in the dura/meninges of an intracranial nerve are coded to cerebral meninges C700. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240042 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Cervix: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor of the cervix coded when it invades into the bladder on surgery and noted as T4. No further information is provided, and it is not possible to contact the physician for clarification. Would you code 550 (Bladder wall; bladder, NOS excluding mucosa), 750 (Bladder mucosa), or 999 Unknown? |
Assign code 550 (Bladder, NOS excluding mucosa) to EOD Primary Site based on invasion into the bladder with no mention of mucosa. EOD Primary Tumor for cervix, Note 1, instructions are to use the extension information to code primary tumor in preference to a statement of FIGO stage when both are available. TNM staging is closely related to FIGO stage, and the surgical findings of bladder invasion NOS in this case should be used in preference to the statement of T4. |
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240039 | Update to Current Manual/Race: For the Example #15 under Race Coding Examples in the 2024 SEER manual, could coding these as 97 result in an under-reporting of Native Hawaiians? See Discussion. |
The race category in some hospital electronic medical record systems includes a combined category of “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” What race code should be used in a situation where the only available information is “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander?” |
Change to current instructions. We will update this example in the next edition of the manual. The new example will instruct registrars to look for other descriptions of the patient’s race. When no other information is available, assign 07, Native Hawaiian, in Race 1 and assign 97, Pacific Islander, NOS in Race 2. Begin following this new instruction now. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240043 | Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” and, therefore, non-reportable, or is this a reportable non-colorectal high grade dysplasia? See Discussion. |
The 2022 ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines indicate “Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade” is 8263/2 and is not SEER reportable. However, the 2024 SEER Manual and clarification from recent SINQs (20240021 and 20240025) confirm high grade dysplasia in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine is reportable (8148/2). Which reportability reference applies to a diagnosis of a tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia in non-colorectal sites? |
A diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia” in the duodenum is not equivalent to a diagnosis of “tubulovillous adenoma, high grade.” Tubulovillous adenoma, high grade (8263/2) is not reportable as of 2022. High grade dysplasia (glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III) is reportable in the esophagus, stomach, and small intestine (8148/2). |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240010 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion. |
Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy. The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment. If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected? Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added? |
Assign code 8574/3 only when there is A history of androgen-deprivation therapy or No history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma Prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation (PCND) can present as untreated primary pathology (i.e., a new primary) or more commonly as a post ADT and androgen receptor inhibition resistance phenomenon. PCND is either a newly diagnosed prostate cancer or a result of ADT indicated for treatment of other prostate cancers or other non-cancer diagnoses (e.g., benign prostatic hyperplasia) but not for the PCND diagnosis. We will edit the notes to make them more clear. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis: Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion. |
The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003. However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not. Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003? |
Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum. The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from "non-HPV-related" to "HPV-independent" and from "HPV-related to "HPV-associated". Warty carcinoma is defined as a "morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture." Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3. The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240002 | First Course Treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should treatment data items be coded for a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and symptomatic anemia treated with Reblozyl (Luspatercept)? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept). There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded? |
Do not code Reblozyl (luspatercept) as treatment. Luspatercept is an ancillary drug approved to treat anemia associated with MDS but not the malignancy. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240032 | Update to Current Manual/Reportability--Biliary Tract: Is a diagnosis of high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder reportable? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed March 2024 with high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder during excision for clinical history of acute cholecystitis and obstruction. Per the STR, Table 10 for Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Duct Histologies shows Biliary intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade as code 8148/2. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia of the biliary tract is also code 8148/2. Recent SINQ 20240021 (GI specific) indicates high grade dysplasia is reportable as high grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia (8148/2) for stomach, small intestine, and esophagus. Does the same hold true for gallbladder? If so, then it appears there is a conflict between STR and Appendix E2. However, using the logic of SINQ 20240021 for this site would appear to contradict Appendix E2 which indicates high grade dysplasia in sites other than stomach, intestine, and esophageal sites is not reportable. If we can code high grade dysplasia of GI sites to 8148/2, should we accession high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder and other biliary sites in a similar manner? If so, then Appendix E needs to be modified. |
Report biliary intraepithelial neoplasia (dysplasia), high grade. As noted in SINQ 20240021 and the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rules H4/H26, the listed sites may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. We will update the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules to reflect this code as well as make revisions in the next release of the SEER Manual. |
2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20240004 | Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is a malignant spindle cell neoplasm consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 and later, after thorough immunohistochemical work-up? See Discussion. |
Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology. These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries. As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ? |
Report malignant spindle cell neoplasms consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma as directed by Appendix E.1 of the 2023 and 2024 versions of the SEER Manual using 8830/3 (fibroxanthoma, malignant). We will update the answer in SINQ 20190102. While the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules address coding an NOS and specific histology sub-type/variant, this situation is not specifically addressed. We will also review the rules. |
2024 |