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: 04/03/2026 04:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20190097

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are there and what M rules apply for multiple lung histologies in the left lower lobe (LLL) and right upper lobe (RUL) of the lungs? See Discussion.

There is one tumor in the left lung that is acinar adenocarcinoma, 8551/3, and two tumors in the right lung, one of which is 8551/3 and a separate one that is mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3.

3/21/18- left robotic video assisted thoracoscopy with left lower lobe lobectomy: 2.5 cm adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, margins negative

11/3/18- right upper lobe lobectomy: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1.7 cm, invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, 0.6 cm, margins negative

If you start by comparing the 8551/3 left lung tumor to the 8253/3 right lung tumor, M6 applies and these would be separate primaries (seq 01 and seq 02). How would we handle the third tumor, 8551/3, in the right lung? Seq 01: 3/21/18- left lung primary 8551/3 Seq 02: 11/3/18- right lung primary 8253/3 Is the right lung tumor 8551/3 a third primary, and if so, which M rule applies? I cannot find a rule that seems to fit completely. Rule M6 may apply if you were comparing the right 8551/3 tumor to the seq 02 8253/3 tumor. But how would you know to use the seq 02 histology code 8253/3 or seq 01 histology code 8551/3 for the comparison? I think M9 was designed for situations where you have multiple tumors involving both lungs but they didn't biopsy all of them. Is that correct? If so, then we would be able to bypass M9. Would M11 apply since we already took care of two of the tumors with rule M6? If M11 doesn't apply, it seems like you would get to M14.

Abstract two primaries applying Rules M6 and M9 s follows.

First, assign a histology for each tumor.

--LLL adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3

--RUL invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3

--RUL invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3

For the RUL, this is two primaries according to Rule M6, to subtypes in Column 3 of the histology table.

For the LLL and RUL, this represents the same primary as these are the same histology according to Rule M9.

 2019
20190096

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion.

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa.

The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present.

 2019
20190095

Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion.

Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: "Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue." Tumor extension is stated to be "Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue." The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.

Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the "separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma.

 2019
20190094

Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Skin: Is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) reportable as a lymphoma? See Discussion.

The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.

Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is not reportable. ENV is a rare form of chronic lymphedema caused by any number of conditions including neoplasms, trauma, radiation treatment, congestive heart failure, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic venous stasis, and parasitic infection.

 2019
20190092

First course Treatment/Lymph Nodes: When a Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) biopsy ONLY is performed and SLNs are negative, are the SLNs included still counted in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive, or are the fields filled in: RLN Examined: 00 (No nodes examined) RLN Positive: 98 (No nodes examined) Date RLN Dissection: 00/00/0000 (No RLN dissection performed) or are the SLN included in the RLN Examined/Positive field but the Date RLN Dissection is 00/00/0000? See Discussion.

According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.

If a SLN biopsy is performed but no RLN dissection is performed, assign as follows.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection: Leave blank as this field records the date non-sentinel regional node dissection was performed.

Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection Flag: Assign code 11 (Not applicable: No proper value is applicable in this context (for example, no regional lymph node dissection was performed; autopsy only cases).

Regional Nodes Examined: Indicate the number of SLNs examined as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

Regional Nodes Positive: Indicate the number of SLNs positive as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.

 2019
20190089

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Rule H3 of the Solid Tumor Rules was added to capture non-small cell carcinoma modified by ambiguous terminology when the physician confirms the ambiguous term as the histologic diagnosis, also included in Coding Histology instruction 3.B. If differentiation and features are not included in the histology term, does instruction 2 takes precedence? See Discussion.

For example, pathologic diagnosis is non-small cell carcinoma with squamous features. The medical oncologist describes this as squamous cell carcinoma and begins treatment regimen. As I interpret the rules, we would use code 8046, non-small cell carcinoma, because of instruction 2 and the fact that features is not included in the list of ambiguous terminology.

Code 8046 using Coding Instruction 2 that says to: Code the histology described as differentiation or features/features of ONLY when there is a specific ICD-O code for the "NOS with ____ features" or "NOS with ____ differentiation."

Note: Do not code differentiation or features when there is no specific ICD-O code.

In the example, no ambiguous terminology is used. If ambiguous terminology is used indicating a more specific term, you would code to the specific histology.

 2019
20190088

Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.

Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.

For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual:

Assign code 1

When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer

This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site

SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual.

 2019
20190086

EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise.

* Code 000: In situ

* Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level)

Code 000: Level I (In situ)

Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 300: Level IV (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 2019
20190085

Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion.

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites.

Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site.

 2019
20190084

Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the histology be coded to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), BCR-ABL1-positive (9875/3) regardless of the quantitative analysis percentage of BCR-ABL1 that was detected? See Discussion.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Code chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) BCR-ABL1-positive as 9875/3.

According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th edition, CML BCR-ABL1-positive is characterized by the chromosomal translocation t(9;22) which results in the formation of the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome containing the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. The diagnosis requires detection of the Ph chromosome and/or BCR-ABL1. If the mutation is detected, regardless of percentage, it is positive. Quantitative levels of BCR-ABL are used to monitor response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

 2019