Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240030 | Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that overlaps skin and the vermillion border reportable when the percent of overlap is unknown? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20031110 addresses an overlapping lip lesion between skin and the vermillion border. We were instructed to go with area of greatest involvement. Case would be reportable if >50% of tumor was on the vermillion border and site would be coded to vermillion border (C00._). Often times percentage of involvement is not stated and all that is known is that the lesion overlaps skin and mucosa. |
Determine whether the lesion is on the mucosa or skin based on the pathology report, history and physical, and operative notes when available. The gross description of the pathology report should include information to help in determining whether the site of origin is epithelium (skin) or mucosa (lip). Do not report the case when the site of origin cannot be determined between a reportable site and non-reportable site for this histology. This includes situations where the site of origin or the site with the greatest involvement is undetermined. In this case, you cannot confirm reportability. |
2024 |
|
|
20240029 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a 11/2023 diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in lower gum (C031) a new primary and what rules apply for a patient with 09/2017 invasive SCC of lower gum (C031) and 05/2022 invasive SCC of lateral tongue (C023)? See Discussion. |
The 11/2023 lower gum tumor is a separate tumor occurring after a disease-free interval, so we know the Head and Neck Multiple Tumors Module applies. However, our staff is having difficulty applying the rules to this particular scenario with consistent results. Is the 11/2023 SCC a non-reportable recurrence per M12, since M4 is ignored due to patient’s prior 2017 C031 (lower gum) primary, and then M6 is ignored due to patient’s prior 05/2022 C023 primary? Or is the 11/2023 SCC a new primary per M4, since the last diagnosis was in a site differing at the third character (C03 vs C02)? If M4 does not apply due to patient's previous C03 primary, then does M6 apply since it has been more than 5 years since the previous C03 primary? |
Abstract three primaries for the scenario you describe.
|
2024 |
|
|
20240028 | 2024 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Breast: Is Primary Site coded as C504 or C501 based on the Solid Tumor Rules and the SEER Manual Breast Coding Guidelines? The pathology report reads "Right Breast 10:00 1 cm from the nipple." Codes C502-C505 take priority over code C501. The description for C501 in the Solid Tumor Rules has "Area extending 1 cm around areolar complex." |
Assign Primary Site code C504 based on the location in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast, 10 o’clock, as opposed to code C501, around the areolar complex. The 2024 SEER Manual Breast Coding Guidelines advise that C502 - C505 are generally preferred over C501 when there is no other way to determine the subsite. |
2024 | |
|
|
20240027 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2005 diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is followed by a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4? See Discussion. |
The patient underwent a gross total resection of the 2005 glioblastoma multiforme (9440/3). The patient was subsequently diagnosed with a 2024 diagnosis of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 (9445/3). Should Rule M13 apply to the new 2024 diagnosis and a new primary be accessioned because astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4 is listed on a different row than glioblastoma? It is unclear whether histology 9445 should be classified as being on a different row because it is also listed as a subtype/variant for glioblastoma in Table 3. Table 3 lists histology 9445 as both “Astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, WHO grade 4” and as “Glioblastoma IDH-mutant.” |
Abstract two primaries using the 2024 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M13. Glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type (9440/3) and astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 (9445/3) are on two separate rows in Table 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System, 5th edition, lists the subtypes of glioblastoma, IDH-wild-type as giant cell glioblastoma; gliosarcoma; and epithelioid glioblastoma. The term glioblastoma multiforme is not recommended for glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype in the 5th edition, and lists astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, grade 4 as a subtype of astrocytoma, IDH-mutant. |
2024 |
|
|
20240026 | Update to Current Manual/Reportability--Pancreas: For cases diagnosed 2024+, is a diagnosis of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia II (PanIN II) reportable? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual: Reportability – Reportable Diagnosis List indicates pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN II) (C250-C259) is reportable. However, the ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Do not report PanIN II. WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition, now categorizes PanIN into two categories, low grade (8148/0) and high grade (8148/2). PanIN grade I and PanIN grade II are categorized as PanIN low grade; PanIN grade III is categorized as PanIN high grade. We will update the Reportability section of the manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20240025 | Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion. |
Example 4: Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false. Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries? |
High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20240024 | Reportability/Histology: Is angiomyxoma (this includes borderline or behavior code /1 cases) of the soft tissue reportable? Can you provide us with coding guidelines for angiomyxoma for when its reportable or not reportable? |
Do not report angiomyxoma. ICD-O-3.2 assigns 8841/0 to this benign tumor. This includes superficial and deep (aggressive) angiomyxoma. |
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 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
2024 |
|
|
20240021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Reportability/Histology--Digestive Sites: Is a diagnosis of “high grade dysplasia” (not specified to be squamous or glandular) reportable for esophagus, stomach, and small intestine for cases diagnosed beginning in 2024? If so, how should histology be coded? See Discussion. |
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual indicates high grade dysplasia of esophagus, stomach, and small intestine are reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 does not include “high grade dysplasia” as equivalent to “high grade squamous dysplasia.” If reportable, would high grade dysplasia (NOS) that originates in the stomach and small intestine default to 8148/2, while esophageal high grade dysplasia (NOS) default to 8077/2? |
Report these high grade dysplasia of the following organs as stated below. Stomach: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Stomach Histologies and as described in the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th edition. Small intestine and Esophagus: Assign code 8148/2 glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade, using the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites Histology Rules, Rule H4/H26. The following note is listed for both of these rules. Note: This list may not include all reportable neoplasms for 8148/2. See SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual or STORE manual for reportable neoplasms The Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5: Esophagus Histologies and Table 7: Small Intestine and Ampulla of Vater Histologies will be updated to reflect this code as time permits. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
