Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20230046 | Reportability/Histology--Tongue: Is high grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue reportable; and is it the same as carcinoma in situ (CIS), code 8077/2? |
High grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue is reportable as of 2021 and later as 8077/2. |
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 |
|
|
20230020 | First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded for cases when surgery was planned but aborted due to extent of disease seen during planned procedure? See Discussion. |
Lung abnormality on imaging prompted diagnosis on subsequent biopsy and clinical staging was documented as cT1b N0 M0. There was an attempt at resection, but the patient was found to have chest wall involvement and the procedure was aborted. How would Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded in these types of scenarios when the surgery is aborted and the treatment plan changes due to the extension seen during surgery? |
For the example provided: For 2023 cases and forward, if no part of the surgery was performed, code Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) as code A000 or B000 (no surgical procedure of the primary site). Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 2 (surgery of the primary site was not recommended/performed because it was contraindicated due to patient risk factors (comorbid conditions, advanced age, progression of tumor prior to planned surgery, etc.). In contrast, if any part of the surgery was performed, assign the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) code that best reflects the extent of the surgery performed. Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 0 (surgery of the primary site was performed). Use text fields to record the details. For cases prior to 2023, apply the same approach using Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1290) instead of Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291). |
2023 |
|
|
20230034 | Update to Current Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Melanoma: Considering the 2023 melanoma surgery codes for punch biopsy NOS (B220) and shave biopsy NOS (B230), how is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded when the punch or shave biopsy is not excisional? See Discussion. |
Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed? Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy? |
Code the Date of First Surgical Procedure as 01/01/2023 in the example provided where the shave biopsy is followed by wide excision. Beginning in 2023, significant changes were made in that shave, punch, and elliptical biopsies are coded as surgical procedure regardless of margin status. Appendix C Skin Surgery Codes state that an incisional biopsy would be a needle or core biopsy of the primary tumor. Please see Appendix M: Case Studies for Coding Melanoma in STORE v23, Case study 2: Shave Biopsy followed by WLE (page 412), for an explicit example of how to code your example case. We will clarify this in the upcoming release of the SEER manual, |
2023 |
|
|
20230027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Peripheral Nerves: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M Rule applies, when a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) in the right arm (C471) is followed greater than one year later by a separate malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the thoracic chest wall (C473)? See Discussion. |
Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician. While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites? |
Abstract a single primary using Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves, Rule M10 based on the information provided. Rule M10 applies as both non-contiguous tumors are of the same histology; i.e., on the same row in Table 3. As MPNST can arise in many sites, look for information about the precise location and tissue type in which the tumor arose. For example, if the tumors are stated to arise in soft tissue, follow the Multiple Primary Rules for Other Sites. Both WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors and WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors state that MPNST is a malignant spindle cell tumor often arising from a peripheral nerve, from a pre-existing benign nerve sheath tumor, or in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Future updates will move C470-C479 from CNS to other sites module. |
2023 |
|
|
20230043 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung tumor diagnosed as “Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous, grade 1, lepidic-predominant”? See Discussion. |
The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.” The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented. Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case? |
Assign histology code 8254/3 (mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma) to this lung tumor using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4. This is a new code/term approved by IARC/WHO for ICD-O. Rule H4 instructs one to code the histology when only one histology is present. In this case, the pathologist indicates the tumor is mixed mucinous and non-mucinous histologies. The non-mucinous carcinoma that is seen in this mixed histology may be identified as: Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. In this case it is lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. Lepidic is a recognized histology in lung. It is not unusual for the pathologist to indicate mixed non-muncinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma AND also list the non-mucinous subytpe. It is important to capture both mucinous and non-mucinous histologies which drives treatment, etc. |
2023 |
|
|
20240037 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is histology coded for a bladder tumor when the diagnosis is 95% large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and 5% high grade urothelial carcinoma of no special type? See Discussion. |
In the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update, the small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma row in Table 2 was changed. The NOS histology became neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS (8246) and both large cell and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (8013 and 8041, respectively) became the subtype/variants. This change impacts Rule H4 but Rule H4 was not updated. Rule H4 still refers to small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma as being the NOS histology. In the prior STR versions, it was clear the tumor in question would be coded as 8045 per Rule H4 and Table 2. Considering Rule H4 was not updated according to the changes for Table 2, does histology 8045 still apply to this diagnosis? There is currently no way to arrive at a histology for this case. Does Rule H4, bullet 3 need to be updated to indicate, “subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma (does not apply to sarcoma)”? |
Assign 8013/3 (combined large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma). There are two histologies present: large cell NEC and urothelial. Literature search found primary large cell NEC of the bladder is extremely rare with less than 20 reported cases. This case does not fall into the site-specific rules and given it's raity, a specific rule for this situation was not and will not be added to the Bladder rules. See #1, Example 2, in the general instructions for coding histology. |
2024 |
|
|
20240038 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and what M Rule applies to a 2023 diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma followed by a 2024 diagnosis of pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) when the patient did not undergo surgery, but did undergo hormone therapy with Cabergoline? See Discussion. |
Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Rule M5 instructs us to abstract a single primary (as malignant) when a single tumor is originally diagnosed as non-malignant, the “First course treatment was active surveillance (no tumor resection),” and the subsequent resection pathology is malignant. This patient’s first course of treatment was not active surveillance. While the patient did not have first course tumor resection, the tumor was treated with Cabergoline. Should Rule M5 apply because there was no tumor resection? If so, should Rule M5 clearly state no tumor resection is the criteria (not active surveillance)? SINQ 20230023 does indicate a PitNET diagnosis following a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma does not fall into standard rules, but in the previous SINQ the first course treatment was a partial resection. It is unclear whether other types of treatment could result in a new malignant PitNET, following a previously treated non-malignant pituitary tumor. |
Abstract a single primary as 8272/3 (pituitary adenoma/PitNET) using the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M2, a single tumor is always a single tumor. Change the histology of the 2023 diagnosis to 8272/3. This scenario does not meet the criteria in the current rules for M5 in that it requires a resection as part of the criteria. Since the patient did not undergo resection for either diagnosis, the 2024 diagnosis may indicate recurrence or progression. A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma only is still coded 8272/0 (this code is still valid). A diagnosis of pituitary adenoma/PitNET, PitNET, or pituitary neuroendorine tumor is coded 8272/3. Cabergoline is used to treat prolactinoma or high levels of prolactin but does not impact the PitNET. |
2024 |
|
|
20240023 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis: Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion. |
The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003. However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not. Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003? |
Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum. The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from "non-HPV-related" to "HPV-independent" and from "HPV-related to "HPV-associated". Warty carcinoma is defined as a "morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture." Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3. The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding. |
2024 |
|
|
20240046 | Reportability/Histology--Stomach: According to the AJCC manual, histology codes 8240 and 8249 are excluded from site code C160. Does that mean that I cannot use either of these histology codes with C160 even if the pathologist's diagnosis is neuroendocrine carcinoma? |
Please understand that AJCC sets the standards for TNM Staging and the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) initiative sets standards for the validity of site and morphology combinations. The statement in the AJCC manual “8240 and 8249 are excluded for topography code C160” means that these two histologies are not staged using the AJCC Staging System. As with numerous other reportable entities that are not staged by AJCC, the case is reportable and a Summary Stage should be assigned. Combinations of C160 with 8240 or 8249 are valid site/histology combinations for registry reporting and should not be discouraged from use if they correspond to the pathologist’s diagnosis. This goes for any other similar note in the AJCC manual. All CPC standards are enforced via the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) N7040 and Histologic Type ICDO3, Primary Site, Date of Diagnosis (NAACCR) N4911 data quality edits. Registrars can also look up the validity of site and morphology combinations using the CPC*Search tool: https://seer.cancer.gov/cancerpathchart/search/tool/. It is important to remember the following.
|
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
