System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/21/2024 12:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20240025

Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion.

Example 4:  Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false.

Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries?

High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual.

 2024
20240070

Reportability/Histology:  Does Cancer Pathology Coding Histology And Registration Terminology (Cancer PathCHART) determine if the histology is reportable or do we have to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheet?

The CPC ICD-O-3 Site Morphology Validation Lists (SMVLs) designate all tumor site-morphology combinations that are either valid or impossible as determined for the sites reviewed by the Cancer PathCHART initiative. These lists provide information on the Validity Status of specific tumor site and morphology combinations, similar to the way the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation List used to. However, the CPC SMVLs do not include information on the reportability of specific tumor site and morphology combinations. For tumor reportability, you will continue to use the Excel ICD-O-3.2 spreadsheets posted to the NAACCR ICD-O-3 Coding Updates website: https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/, and the most recent SEER Manual and federal, state, local, and other standard setters' reportability requirements.

 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
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
20240009

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. 

 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
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