Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20240006 | Primary Site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What are the correct primary site and histology for patient diagnosed with an oropharyngeal soft tissue mass revealing plasma cell neoplasm with 5-10% of marrow cellularity in 2022? See Discussion. |
Patient underwent excision of an oropharyngeal soft tissue mass revealing plasma cell neoplasm with extensive amyloid deposition. During work-up, bone marrow biopsy also revealed involvement by plasma cell neoplasm, with 5-10% of marrow cellularity. No amyloid seen in bone marrow. Patient was referred for radiation of the oropharyngeal mass. Per medical oncology qualifying best for the diagnosis of solitary extramedullary plasmacytoma with minimal marrow involvement. Decision made for observation by medical oncology in view of “minimal” bone marrow involvement. Question: Is rule M11 correct, and I abstract this case as a plasma cell myeloma, 9732/3, C421? |
Code as an oropharyngeal primary site and histology as solitary plasmacytoma (9734/3) based on consultation with our hematological expert. The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues defines multiple myeloma as "bone marrow plasma cell percentage >60%." There are several other factors, but the bone marrow involvement is the key point for your case. The pathologist also states that the bone marrow is consistent with "plasma cell neoplasm," which by itself is not the same as multiple myeloma. This case has 5-10% involvement by plasma cell neoplasm. This does not meet the bone marrow qualifications for multiple myeloma and is consistent with the pathologist's statement that there is minimal bone marrow involvement. We will be updating the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and Manual to clarify this (2025 updates). |
2024 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
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 | |
|
|
20240029 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a 11/2023 diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in lower gum (C031) a new primary and what rules apply for a patient with 09/2017 invasive SCC of lower gum (C031) and 05/2022 invasive SCC of lateral tongue (C023)? See Discussion. |
The 11/2023 lower gum tumor is a separate tumor occurring after a disease-free interval, so we know the Head and Neck Multiple Tumors Module applies. However, our staff is having difficulty applying the rules to this particular scenario with consistent results. Is the 11/2023 SCC a non-reportable recurrence per M12, since M4 is ignored due to patient’s prior 2017 C031 (lower gum) primary, and then M6 is ignored due to patient’s prior 05/2022 C023 primary? Or is the 11/2023 SCC a new primary per M4, since the last diagnosis was in a site differing at the third character (C03 vs C02)? If M4 does not apply due to patient's previous C03 primary, then does M6 apply since it has been more than 5 years since the previous C03 primary? |
Abstract three primaries for the scenario you describe.
|
2024 |
|
|
20240026 | Update to Current Manual/Reportability--Pancreas: For cases diagnosed 2024+, is a diagnosis of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia II (PanIN II) reportable? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual: Reportability – Reportable Diagnosis List indicates pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN II) (C250-C259) is reportable. However, the ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Do not report PanIN II. WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition, now categorizes PanIN into two categories, low grade (8148/0) and high grade (8148/2). PanIN grade I and PanIN grade II are categorized as PanIN low grade; PanIN grade III is categorized as PanIN high grade. We will update the Reportability section of the manual. |
2024 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20240048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: What is histology code of a breast tumor with ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type? See Discussion. |
Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present. Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables. |
Lymphoepithelial carcinoma is a subtype of SCC usually seen in skin or H&N sites and often associated with EBV. CPC SME review determined 8082/3 invalid for breast but did not recommend a substitute code. There were only 45 cases coded 8082 2001 to 2019. For this case, it's possible the lesion originated in the breast skin and progressed to breast tissue. SCC is a subtype of metaplastic breast carcinoma so one could argue it code be coded either 8575 or 8070. For this case, we recommend assigning 8500/3. Use text fields to record the details. |
2024 |
|
|
20240017 | EOD/Prostate Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is a pathology report from a prostate biopsy/transurethral resection of the prostate that states "with intraductal spread" extraprostatic/extracapsular extension or localized? |
Code as a localized, intracapsular tumor as ductal carcinoma in situ does not invade. Intraductal spread is describing the neoplasm spreading through the acinar/ductal cells in the prostate specimen. It is an in-situ type of spread and not invasive but almost always presents with an invasive tumor. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
