Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20250011 | Reportability--Liver: Is a 2023 cholangiocarcinoma case with Liver Imaging Reporting And Data System (LI-RADS) M (LR-M) lesion on imaging reportable? |
Report LR-M unless there is information to the contrary. The American College of Radiology defines LR-M as "probably or definitely malignant, not necessarily hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)." |
2025 | |
|
|
20250004 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of myeloid stem cell disorder or myeloid stem cell neoplasm reportable when the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
Pathologists are increasingly using the terms "myeloid stem cell disorder" and "myeloid stem cell neoplasm" to describe reportable myeloid neoplasms. If the pathologist uses these terms and indicates the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms such as myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), should this be accessioned as a reportable primary? Example: The 01/2023 peripheral blood shows high grade myeloid stem cell disorder, and the differential diagnosis includes chronic myelomonocytic leukemia(CMML) and AML. The patient refused further work-up and expired several days later. No additional information is available. |
Report the case when the differential diagnosis includes only reportable neoplasms in the absence of additional information. We are unable to provide general instructions for provisional diagnoses as each situation will need to be reviewed and assessed individually when no further work-up information is available.
Assign myeloid leukemia, NOS (9860/3) to the case described in the example. Assign a generic histology code because a specific histology code cannot be assigned when there are several differential diagnoses. Since the differential diagnoses include a chronic and an acute leukemia, code as myeloid leukemia, NOS since it is not clear if this is chronic or acute. |
2025 |
|
|
20250017 | SEER Manual/First Course Therapy--Neoadjuvant Therapy: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded for bladder cancers? The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder does not provide a clear distinction between the SEER site-specific codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect for All Other Schemas, codes 2, 3, and 4, as compared to the CAP Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) categories. See Discussion. |
CAP Protocol for the Examination of Cystectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder/Treatment Effect Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (BCG not included) selections o No known presurgical neoadjuvant therapy o Complete response: Absence of histologically identifiable residual cancer cells and extensive fibrosis of the tumor bed after presurgical neoadjuvant therapy (TRG1) o Strong response: Predominant fibrosis of the tumor bed, with residual cancer cells occupying less than 50% of this area (TRG2) o Weak or no response: Residual cancer cells occupying ≥50% of the tumor bed or absence of regressive changes (TRG3) o Other (specify): _________________ SEER Coding Instruction for Site-Specific Codes for Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect - Schemas: All Other Schemas selections 0 Neoadjuvant therapy not given/no known presurgical therapy 1 Complete pathological response Present: No viable cancer cells/no residual invasive carcinoma identified Residual in situ carcinoma only 2 Near complete pathological response Present: Single cells or rare small groups of invasive cancer cells 3 Partial or minimal pathological response Present: Residual invasive cancer with evident tumor regression, but more than single cells or rare small groups of cancer cells 4 Poor or no pathological response Absent: Extensive residual cancer with no evident tumor regression 6 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and surgical resection performed, response not documented or unknown Cannot be determined 7 Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed 9 Unknown if neoadjuvant therapy performed Unknown if planned surgical procedure performed after completion of neoadjuvant therapy
Death Certificate only (DCO) |
Code Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect using the surgical pathology report only. Carefully review the pathology report gross description and comments to assist with assignment of codes. Review of neoadjuvant therapy data items is currently underway. |
2025 |
|
|
20250001 | Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Are the following terms and diagnoses synonymous with endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and therefore reportable? 1. Atypical glandular epithelium 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia 4. EIN/complex atypical hyperplasia (EIN/CAH) or focal EIN/CAH (on biopsy but the resection pathology or operative note states no EIN/CAH/atypical hyperplasia) |
We have questions regarding reportability of some terms/diagnoses after a review of EIN cases back to 2021. While some seem synonymous with EIN, others have different terms in the pathology report though the physician is treating as if they have the diagnosis. 1. Atypical glandular epithelium Scenario: Endometrium biopsy with ablation performed at Facility A on 8/7/2024 showed atypical glandular epithelium. Patient was sent to Facility B where the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) on 9/20/2024 showed other reactive fibrosis and obliterated architecture compatible with history of ablation. Is atypical glandular epithelium synonymous with and coded as EIN? 2. Isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia Scenario: Endometrium biopsy showed isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. Then Facility B did TAH/BSO that showed no evidence of high grade dysplasia, atypical hyperplasia, or carcinoma. 3. Simple hyperplasia without atypia Scenario: Endometrial biopsy pathology states simple hyperplasia without atypia and the TAH/BSO is either negative or has the same histology; however, the treating physician is stating EIN. 4. EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH Scenario: Biopsy showed EIN/CAH but the total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) pathology or the Mirena IUD treatment operative note states no EIN/CAH/Atypical hyperplasia. Are these reportable, similar to an in situ when the re-excision lumpectomy or mastectomy is negative or no residual disease? |
Reportability for EIN became effective in 2021. 1. Do not report atypical glandular epithelium. Atypical glandular epithelium, also referred to as atypical glandular cells (AGC), refers to abnormal looking cells that may be found in the tissue lining the inside of the endometrium or the cervix. While not malignant (in situ or invasive), they can be associated with a range of lesions in the female reproductive system. 2. Do not report isthmic-type mucosa with focal severe atypia. The NCI data dictionary defines atypia as an abnormality in cells in tissue. Report the case when further defined as atypical hyperplasia. 3. Do not report simple hyperplasia without atypia. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines endometrial hyperplasia without atypia as a proliferation of endometrial glands of irregular size and shape without significant atypia. There is no ICD-O code for this term. Simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia is an acceptable related term for endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. Pathology has priority over a physician statement. 4. Report EIN/CAH or focal EIN/CAH (8380/2) based on the biopsy. WHO Classification of Tumors online, Female Genital Tumors (5th ed.), defines EAH/EIN as a simultaneous change of epithelial cytology and an increased number of endometrial glands in a defined region. The preferred term is atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium; terms not recommended include complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia; simple atypical endometrial hyperplasia; endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia.
|
2025 |
|
|
20250016 | Reportability--Head & Neck: Are high-grade squamous dysplasia / “severe” squamous dysplasia or glandular intraepithelial neoplasia reportable for all Head & Neck subsites? If so, what year did they become reportable? In reviewing SINQ 20240003, 20230047, and 20230046, it appears that at least the larynx, mandible, and tongue have been reportable since 2021. However, 8077/2 and 8148/2 histology codes are not included in the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) (2025 update) for Head and Neck, either in Tables 1-9 or the H Rules. |
High grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2) is reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2021. High grade glandular intraepithelial neoplasia / glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8148/2) and high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia / squamous intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (8077/2) are reportable for head and neck sites for cases diagnosed as of 01/01/2001. Refer to other standard setters’ criteria for reportability as appropriate. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250002 | Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor reportable and if so what histology code should be used? See Discussion. | Patient had a left thigh soft tissue mass excision on 7/24/24 and was diagnosed with superficial CD34 positive fibroblastic tumor. Margins were narrowly free of disease. Tumor size was 5.5 cm x 4.4 cm x 3.9 cm. The diagnosis was confirmed. |
Do not report superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor (8810/1) of the thigh. WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors, 5th ed., defines superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumor as a distinctive low-grade neoplasm of the skin and subcutis, most frequently occurring in the lower extremities, especially thigh, followed by arm, buttock, shoulder, and rarely, vulva. |
2025 |
|
|
20250025 | EOD 2018/Regional Nodes--Liver: Are the celiac axis lymph nodes considered regional lymph nodes or distant lymph nodes for a 2025 liver primary? |
According to the AJCC CAnswer Forum (https://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/node/160948), celiac axis nodes are considered regional for the liver. However, for liver primaries, Extent of Disease (EOD) regional lymph nodes list the following as regional lymph nodes:
Based on this information, should celiac axis lymph nodes be considered as regional for liver primaries when coding EOD Regional Nodes? |
Code celiac axis lymph nodes as regional in EOD Regional Nodes for liver primaries. |
2025 |
|
|
20250006 | Reportability/Histology--Appendix: Is carcinoid of the appendix reportable? If yes, when did this take effect? |
Report carcinoid, NOS of the appendix. As of 01/01/2015, the ICD-O-3 behavior code changed from /1 to /3. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250024 | Reportability/Histology--Adrenal Gland: Is a case of pheochromocytoma reportable? The adrenal resection that was sent out for expert review final diagnosis is: Pheochromocytoma Impression with comment: Benign Pheochromocytoma based on Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) of 4. |
Report pheochromocytoma (8700/3). According to WHO Classification of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Tumors, 5th edition, patients with pheochromocytomas are currently considered to have a lifelong risk of metastases and therefore conceptually they are all considered ‘malignant.’ |
2025 | |
|
|
20250013 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Testis: How many primaries and what M Rule applies when metastatic seminoma is diagnosed greater than 40 years after a left testicular teratoma with yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with a left testis primary in the early 1980s that did not include a seminoma component per the information available. The slides were not available for review. In 2024, the patient was found to have a metastatic seminoma involving multiple pelvic lymph nodes and the prostate. The right testicular ultrasound was negative. The managing physician noted this was both a "relapsed seminoma" and a "Stage IIC seminoma." Should the new diagnosis of metastatic seminoma be accessioned as a new primary based on the histology differences? Or is this situation similar to SINQ 20160073 in which this is a single primary even though the metastases are a distinctly different histology? |
Without evidence of a new testicular tumor, record this as a single primary now with metastatic disease (seminoma). The seminoma may not have been identified in the original tumor and treatment was based on the histologies found. This allowed the seminoma to metastasize. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
