Solid Tumor Rules/Histology --Brain and CNS: Why is high grade astrocytoma with piloid features (HGAP) not grouped together with the other astrocytoma histologies as a subtype/variant of astrocytoma? See Discussion.
It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP?
HGAP is listed as a separate classification and is not a subtype of the diffuse gliomas. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 5th edition, has two categories dealing with non-pediatric astrocytic tumors:
Adult-type diffuse gliomas
Circumscribed astrocytic tumors
HGAP falls into the second category as a result of updates to the 4th edition WHO classification in 2016 with advances in the role of molecular diagnostics with the 5th edition. All astrocytic tumors were previously grouped together whereas not all diffuse gliomas (astrocytic or not) are grouped together on the basis of growth pattern and behaviors, and shared IDH1 and IDH2 genetic status. The new classification separates astrocytomas that have a more circumscribed growth pattern, lack IDH gene alterations, and sometimes have BRAF mutations (i.e., pilocytic astrocytoma). The impact of molecular advances has driven classification changes as described in the 5th edition.
Review of site/histologiy combinations for CNS neoplasms is currently being performed by Cancer PathCHART experts. It's possible they will recommend HGAP be moved to a subtype/variant of astrocytoma, NOS.
Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion.
SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa.
Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip).
Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability.
Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III (LIN II or LIN III)? See Discussion.
Laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III is not included in the ICD-O-3.2 and, while the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) confirms this is reportable, neither the SPCSM nor the Solid Tumor Rules Manual provide the specific histology to use for LIN II or LIN III. Should this be coded as 8077/2 since this is most like a high grade squamous dysplasia?
Assign histology code, 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade) for LIN III and for LIN II. ICD-O-3.2 lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II and grade III as 8077/2 indicating it is reportable. ICD-O-3.2 does not list every site-specific type of intraepithelial neoplasia. Check the SEER manual for reportable and non-reportable examples.
2024 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Breast: Is Primary Site coded as C504 or C501 based on the Solid Tumor Rules and the SEER Manual Breast Coding Guidelines? The pathology report reads "Right Breast 10:00 1 cm from the nipple."
Codes C502-C505 take priority over code C501. The description for C501 in the Solid Tumor Rules has "Area extending 1 cm around areolar complex."
Assign Primary Site code C504 based on the location in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast, 10 o’clock, as opposed to code C501, around the areolar complex. The 2024 SEER Manual Breast Coding Guidelines advise that C502 - C505 are generally preferred over C501 when there is no other way to determine the subsite.
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.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home