| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20260008 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should "consistent with" be included in the ambiguous terminology for reportability list in the updated Heme Manual? See Discussion. |
In the Heme Manual, published October 2025, the ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability for heme and lymphoid neoplasms (Case Reportability Instructions) was updated and "consistent with" was removed. However, this is an ambiguous term that is used to describe reportability (and not just histology). The term "consistent with" was previously included as a reportable ambiguous term used to report cases prior to this update. The updated Heme Manual is clear regarding "consistent with" now being a definitive diagnosis for the purpose of coding histology. However, the Note under instruction 4 states, "Do not apply these changes to casefinding, reportability, or staging." Is "consistent with" an exception to this Note? Or should it be re-added to the ambiguous terms related to reportability? |
The 2027 version of the Hematopoietic Manual (release October 2026) will include the following in the Case Reportability Instructions, pg. 40: 4. “Consistent with” for reportability and casefinding is now a definitive diagnosis and is no longer ambiguous terminology. This is for hematopoietic neoplasms ONLY. a. “Consistent with” has become a very common way for pathologists to document diagnoses for Hematopoietic neoplasms. In order to ensure that hematopoietic cases are being reported, “consistent with” has now become definitive terminology for casefinding and reportability (see Histology Coding Instructions for assigning histology). b. Do not apply this instruction to casefinding and reportability for Solid Tumors. 5. Report the case when the diagnosis of a hematopoietic neoplasm is preceded by one or more of the ambiguous terms listed below: a. This instruction pertains to reportability and case finding only. See the Histology Coding Instructions, #3-5 for instructions on assigning histology with ambiguous terminology (note that “consistent with” has been removed. See Note #4) .
|
2026 |
|
|
20260001 | SEER Manual/Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: Should "(salpingo)" be removed in the SEER Note under Ovary surgery code A280? See Discussion. |
Code A280 is defined as a total removal of the ovarian tumor or removal of a single ovary (oophorectomy) WITH a hysterectomy. The unilateral removal of both the fallopian tube and ovary [(salpingo-) oophorectomy] is included in surgery codes A350-A370. However, the SEER Note under code A280 states, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy." Should this SEER Note read, "Also use code A280 for current unilateral oophorectomy with previous history of hysterectomy"? |
Assign code A280 for current unilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy or with a previous history of hysterectomy. We will remove the text ‘(salpingo-)’ from the Ovary surgery code A280 SEER Note in the next release of SEER Manual. |
2026 |
|
|
20250031 | SEER Manual/Reportability/Histology: Is severe dysplasia reportable? This is commonly listed as a synonym for high grade dysplasia. Is this term "severe dysplasia" reportable in the sites where high grade dysplasia is reportable? This is listed as a synonym, but it is not clear. See Discussion.
|
We are seeing cases on this in head and neck. The College of American Pathologists Oral Cancer Protocol is showing this as keratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ) and nonkeratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ). SINQ Question 20230047 shows it as reportable for head and neck. |
Report severe dysplasia for selected sites. Not all high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia are reportable. Refer to the list of examples in the SEER Manual Reportability Section and Appendix E, Reportable and Non-reportable Examples. Check also for other standard setters, state, and local reportability requirements. High grade dysplasia, severe dysplasia, and carcinoma in situ are equivalent terms with behavior /2. Refer to ICD-O, WHO Classification of Tumors, and the SEER Solid Tumor Rules for preferred histology terms and codes. For example, WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition, states carcinoma in situ in the oral cavity is synonymous with severe dysplasia though it is not a recommended term. |
2025 |
|
|
20250030 | First Course of Therapy/Hormone Therapy--Meningioma: Should Sandostatin be coded as treatment for a Grade 1 meningioma? Patient had surgery and was somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) positive by immunohistochemistry. |
Code Sandostatin (octreotide acetate) as hormonal therapy when given including: · SSTR 2 positive meningioma (NCCN, 2025: smaller studies support the use of targeted therapy including somatostatin) · Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (NCCN, 2025: Tumor control: antitumor effect is supported by studies for well-differentiated G1/G2 gastro-entero-pancreatic NET. In lung/thymic NET, somatostatin analogues may be considered if metastatic or SSTR positive). The SEER*Rx entry for Octreotide Acetate was updated as studies showed somatostatin analogs may shrink tumors or inhibit further growth. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250029 | EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Oropharynx: Is code 550 missing “< equal to 6 cm” in the data item EOD Regional Nodes for Oropharynx HPV-Associated, Version 9? Otherwise, bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes with extranodal extension (ENE) that are >6 cm could fit into 550 OR 650. |
Code 550 is missing “< equal to 6 cm.” In addition, code 650 should include ipsilateral lymph nodes as well. Revised codes: Code 550 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, < equal to 6 cm WITH clinical evidence of ENE Code 650 CLINICAL ASSESSMENT only Ipsilateral, Bilateral or Contralateral lymph nodes > 6 cm WITH or WITHOUT clinical evidence of ENE These changes will be implemented in Version 3.4 (October 2026). We apologize for the error. |
2025 | |
|
|
20250028 | 2025 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How is Primary Site coded when lymphangioleiomyomatosis is incidentally diagnosed in pelvic lymph nodes on a resection for an unrelated reason? See Discussion. |
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) became reportable (9174/3) for diagnoses 2023 and later. While this neoplasm was only added to the Lung schema in the Solid Tumor Rules manual, this is a mesenchymal neoplasm which may arise outside of the lung and the reportability change was not limited to LAM of the lung. How should primary site be coded when a left pelvic lymph node dissection for an unrelated high-grade serous carcinoma of the right fallopian tube incidentally proved LAM in the pelvic lymph nodes? The pelvic lymph nodes were the only site of involvement; there was no evidence of lung involvement. As this is a mesenchymal tumor, should the primary site default to C499 (Soft tissue, NOS) according to the default primary site rule for sarcomas described in the SEER Manual? Or should the primary site be coded to C775 (Pelvic lymph nodes) as this was the only proven site of involvement? |
Code the primary site to pelvic lymph nodes (C775) as it is the only site involved with this extrapulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis (E-LAM). |
2025 |
|
|
20250027 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2024 diagnosis of borderline smoldering multiple myeloma reportable? See Discussion. |
Smoldering multiple myeloma is reportable. However, it is unclear if a diagnosis of borderline smoldering multiple myeloma should be accessioned when no further follow-up with the physician is possible. The physician stated the patient, "most likely has borderline smoldering multiple myeloma, but mostly MGUS," and further noted the definition of smoldering myeloma requires at least 10% of plasma cells involved with the neoplasm and some areas of the patient's bone marrow does meet the 10% plasma cell threshold. The physician noted the patient does not need treatment because of the favorable cytogenetics and lack of organ dysfunction. Should the term "borderline" be ignored and the case accessioned? Or is a borderline smoldering myeloma non-reportable? |
Update February 2026, note added: Report this case as smoldering myeloma (9732/3) based on the plasma cell 10% threshold and favorable cytogenetics and lack of organ dysfunction (9732/3). According to the College of American Pathologists Plasma Cell Malignancies Protocol, in order to code smoldering multiple myeloma, both criteria must be met: • Serum monoclonal protein (IgG or IgA) ≥3gm/dL, or urinary monoclonal protein ≥ 500 mg per 24h and/or clonal bone marrow plasma cells 10-60% • Absence of myeloma defining events or amyloidosis. Note: This case was answered by our expert pathologist and applies to this case only. Registrars should not use the plasma cell threshold to determine reportability or histology. The diagnosis must come from the pathologist or the managing physician. |
2025 |
|
|
20250026 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Are SMARCA4- deficient malignant neoplasms (8020/3) valid for esophagus or other sites besides lung? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20200057 states to use SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms newly identified to use 8020/3 in this example for lung. The annotated histology list shows this histology followed by (C34._) for 2023 forward. An esophagus pathology states the following, "The histologic features and immunohistochemical profile are those of a SMARCA2/SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm." Is the 8020/3 histology valid for esophagus or other sites? |
Assign 8020/3 for SMARCA4- deficient malignant neoplasms of the esophagus. The WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, lists undifferentiated carcinoma as 8020/3. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the esophagus is characterized by the frequent loss of SMARCA4 or SMARCA2 by immunohistochemistry. SINQ 20200057 was updated in August 2025 and assigns code 8044/3 for Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT). The 2025 Solid Tumor Manual includes SMARCA4-deficient or SMARCB1-deficient tumors for thoracic and sinonasal sites (8044/3). Assigning histology to other individual sites should be on a case-by-case basis. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
Home
