Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
2023 |
|
20230068 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the histology code for a diagnosis of poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma arising in a background of solid papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries. |
Code to poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma, 8337/3. In this case the tumor is comrpised of two difffernat thyroid histologies: poorly differentiated carcinoma 8337/3 and papillary thyroid carcinoma 8260/3. WHO does not have a code for this combination. Per our endocrine pathology expert, the poorly differentiated carcinoma is the more agressive histology and will determine treatment and progrnosis. |
2023 |
|
20230070 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the left breast (8500/3) in 2020 followed by a 2023 diagnosis of dedifferentiated carcinoma in the left breast (8020/3)? See Discussion. |
The WHO Blue Books do not include dedifferentiated carcinoma as a valid histology for the breast. However, there is known to be progression of ductal carcinoma that is essentially dedifferentiation of an estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 breast carcinoma to a triple negative "dedifferentiated" carcinoma which it appears this patient has. Whether we should accession this as a separate 8020/3 primary per M14 is unclear and the Solid Tumor Manual does not address this scenario. |
Abstract a single primary using Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M18, as none of the previous rules apply. Undifferentiated carcinoma is a malignant epithelial tumour lacking overt evidence of a specific line of differentiation. Dedifferentiated carcinoma is composed of an undifferentiated carcinoma and a differentiated component. Dedifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a morphology is associated with cancer of the endometrium and ovary rather than the breast. Breast cancer shows a broad spectrum of morphology with extensive variation in histological type and grade, related to the complexity of carcinogenesis. This includes initial genetic changes in the cell of origin, subsequent genetic and epigenetic alterations, and reprogramming that occur at various stages of development along with interaction of other factors that influence the process of differentiation. This scenario likely represents the process of phenotypic change of a carcinoma at a later stage, better known as transdifferentiation. |
2023 |
|
20230041 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is an in situ tumor followed by an invasive tumor a single or multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries? Example 1: Tumor 1: C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019 Tumor 2: C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021 Example 2: Tumor 1: C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014 Tumor 2: C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019 There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs. Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play. If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise. |
Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular using the current Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, May 2023 Update, for cases diagnosed 01/01/2018 and forward in the examples provided. The rule also notes to follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code when a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST and lobular carcinoma. Rule M5 does not apply as the timeframe is less than 5 years in both examples. The 2023 update for the Breast Solid Tumor Rules (released November 2022) states: The rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Applicable Histology Rules have also been revised to reflect ICD-O-3.2 histology terminology and corresponding ICD-O codes. |
2023 |
|
20240066 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for a pathologic diagnosis of “Follicular lymphoma, diffuse pattern grade 3A of 3, equivalent to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (germinal center cell type)” when later referenced clinically as follicular lymphoma grade 3A? See Discussion. |
The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic Tumors (Blue Book), 5th edition states: “Rare cases of classic follicular lymphoma with cytological features of follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3A can present with a prominent diffuse pattern. In the previous edition, such cases were defined as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Currently, it is uncertain whether such cases should be classified as FL or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and in such cases, individual treatment choices should be made in multidisciplinary conference settings taking into consideration clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters. The presence of diffuse areas composed entirely or predominantly of large cells, however, warrants a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” Our concern is that the Hematopoietic (Heme) Manual and Database do not provide instruction for coding this scenario. We hesitate to interpret the terms “equivalent to” as ambiguous because one could argue it is unambiguous. Barring this argument, the M and H rules would indicate this is a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, the physician does not seem to agree with the pathologist. |
Assign histology as DLBCL (9680/3) as supported by the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition. It is consistent with how it would have been coded in the 4th edition. The Heme Manual and Database currently are based on the 4th edition. Physicians are using the 5th edition blue book, whereas the cancer registry field is not yet at this time. Regarding the Heme Manual and Database, this type of scenario is not covered because it is part of the 5th edition WHO Blue Book. The database cannot be updated until the 5th edition is approved for implementation (2026). |
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 |
|
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 |
|
20240016 | Histology/Behavior--Head and Neck: What is the histology code for sinonasal glomangiopericytoma in 2023? See Discussion. |
6/8/2023 A. Left nasal mass: Sinonasal glomangiopericytoma B. Additional left nasal mass: Sinonasal glomangiopericytoma Is this a borderline tumor? I am unable to find in this in the ICD-O-3 purple book or the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules. |
Assign histology code 8815/3 per ICD-O-3.2. Sinonasal glomangiopericytoma is also referred to as a sinonasal hemangiopericytoma. Prior to 2021, it was coded as 9150/3. |
2024 |
|
20240074 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had a 2023 nasopharyngeal mass biopsy showing “Nasopharyngeal non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, undifferentiated type.” The Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) do not include an H Rule that instructs us how to code histology when there are two subtypes/variants present for a head and neck primary, nor does the STR define undifferentiated carcinoma as a subtype/variant for 8072. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors states non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma (non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common subtype for nasopharyngeal ca, but that non-keratinizing can be subdivided into undifferentiated and differentiated subtypes. Should histology be 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma) or 8072 (non-keratinizing SCC)? |
Assign histology as 8072 for non-keratinizing SCC, undifferentiated subtype. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition assigns 8072/3 to squamous cell carcinoma, non-keratinizing, NOS in the nasopharynx. As the tumor exhibits a variety of architectural patterns and appearances histologically, they can be further classified as undifferentiated or differentiated subtypes. These subtypes do not change the histology code. |
2024 |
|
20240067 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Kidney: Is a clinical diagnosis of a right kidney lesion with a “75% chance of malignancy” reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion. |
The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm. The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance. No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case. Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant? |
If you are unable to follow up with the physician, do not report this case until or unless more information becomes available. |
2024 |