Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081033 | Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094? | "Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term. Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant." |
2008 | |
|
|
20051079 | Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable? |
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable. The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer. |
2005 | |
|
|
20150014 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" is reportable? See discussion. |
The MRI states "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" but does not include "dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum"; is this the same as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)"? |
"Lhermitte-Duclos disease" alone can be interpreted as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)" and reportable. The WHO classification for CNS tumors lists this entity as "Dysplastic gangliocytoma of the cerebellum (Lhermitte-Duclos disease)" signifying that the terms are used synonymously. |
2015 |
|
|
20140070 | Reportability--Pancreas: Is this reportable? Is this benign? If reportable, what histology code and behavior code should be used? A final pathology diagnosis reads: "Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)". |
"Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)" is reportable. Assign 8150/3 based on the information provided. We consulted our expert pathologist and he states "Since metastases have been reported in a few, and all the rest of the pancreatic endocrine tumors are now designated malignant, …we are safe considering them /3 until proven otherwise. Since most of them are non-functioning, [assign code] 8150/3 unless specified as to G1 (8240/3) or G2 (8249/3)." |
2014 | |
|
|
20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
2011 |
|
|
20230055 | Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "the differential diagnoses include, but not limited to, mantle cell lymphoma, atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and a variant of marginal zone lymphoma" reportable? In the Heme manual, they use differential diagnosis that include reportable conditions as reportable. This can be found under Code 1: positive histology in the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instruction section page 18. The phrase "include, but not limited to" makes this not clear. |
This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly. |
2023 | |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
2023 |
|
|
20240072 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Oropharynx: How is histology coded for a 2024 squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil when immunohistochemistry (IHC) stains are negative for p16, but in situ hybridization (ISH) testing is positive for human papilloma virus (HPV)? See Discussion. |
The Solid Tumor Rules state that for cases diagnosed in 2022 and forward, p16 testing CAN be used to assign histology code 8085 (squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive). The rules also state that for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022, code 8085 MUST be based on ISH testing and not p16. ISH testing is not specifically addressed for 2022+ cases, but are we correct in assuming it can still be used as the basis for 8085? Multiple CAnswer Forum posts and the AJCC 8th edition Head and Neck staging webinar indicate that the correct chapter/registry staging schema in this situation is determined ONLY by p16 results - not ISH testing, and therefore the Schema Discriminator 2 SSDI should be coded as 1 – p16 negative, regardless of ISH results. While we understand that histology codes should not be changed based on staging criteria, there is a SEER/NAACCR edit, “Schema Discriminator 2, Head and Neck, Histology (NAACCR)” tag number N6802, that will not allow coding 8085 if Schema Discriminator 2 is coded as 1 (p16 negative). The edit does seem to be correctly enforcing the AJCC guidelines for choosing the staging schema, based on the sources noted above. Do the Solid Tumor or Site-Specific Data Items (SSDI) guidelines need to be modified for this situation? |
Assign histology as squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive (8085) for tonsil, NOS (C099) based on the positive HPV test. Codes 8085 and 8086 are valid for a select group of sites. The histology terms and codes that are valid for head and neck sites are included in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Table 5 (oropharynx). HPV detection tests that are used to identify HPV include DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR), p16 (IHC), or DNA/RNA in situ hybridization. Assign the appropriate method of detection in the SEER data item, SEER Site-Specific Factor 1. Schema Discriminator 2 captures additional information needed to generate AJCC ID and Schema ID for some anatomic sites as stated in the SSDI Manual. For oropharyngeal cancer, a schema discriminator is used to discriminate between oropharyngeal tumors that are p16 positive, p16 negative, or p16 status unknown in order to assign the appropriate schema ID. Only the HPV p16 test can be used to assign Schema Discriminator 2. If another HPV test is performed, code 9. Override the edit for Schema Discriminator 2 when p16 is negative. Coding updates will be implemented in 2025. |
2024 |
|
|
20240060 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung case with a diagnosis only stated as "high-grade neuroendocrine tumor" in 2022? As the disease was advanced, limited workup was done, and no more specific diagnosis was provided. See Discussion. |
SINQ #20170064 states this should be coded as neuroendocrine carcinoma for rectum, but that may not apply for a 2018+ lung case. The Solid Tumor Manual lists "neuroendocrine tumor, grade 3" as 8249 in the Lung module, Table 3, but our pathology report does not specify grade 3 and we are unsure if that would be equivalent to "high grade" in this case. We were unable to find this exact term in the Solid Tumor Manual or the ICD-O-3.2 update documents. |
Assign 8249/3 for high-grade neuroendocrine tumor of the lung. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, defines two subtypes of neuroendocrine tumor of the lung, typical carcinoids (8240/3), and atypical carcinoids. WHO assigns typical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 1 as 8240/3 and atypical carcinoid/neuroendocrine tumor grade 2 as 8249/3. They are regarded as low-grade and intermediate-grade, respectively. The preferred term for 8249/3 in ICD-O-3.2 is neuroendocrine tumor grade 2, with neuroendocrine tumor grade 3 as a related term. The Lung Solid Tumor Rules assign atypical carcinoid as 8249/3. |
2024 |
|
|
20240071 | Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms/Multiple Primaries--Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: Are essential thrombocytosis (ET) in 1998 and primary myelofibrosis in 2022 the same primary or is the 2022 diagnosis a new primary? See Discussion.
|
Patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocytosis 9962/1 or 3 in 1998 (depending if ET was reportable in 1998), treated with Hydrea. 11-17-2022 Blood smear: CALR + myeloproliferative neoplasm, Most Consistent with Primary Myelofibrosis 9961/3 (Noted CALR and ASXL1 mutations). The following abstractor note from 9661/3 is confusing: A diagnosis of "post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis" is a progression of essential thrombocythemia and would be the same primary. |
Abstract two separate primaries, ET (9962/3) and primary myelofibrosis (9961/3) using the current Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual and Database (DB), Rule M15, use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator. Also refer to the example in Rule M15. In 1998, though the ET was not reportable (9962/1), the patient was treated with chemotherapy as a malignant neoplasm (9962/3). The Calculator instructs us to code separate primaries for these two histologies. ET may evolve into a secondary myelofibrosis, also known as post-essential thrombocythemia-myelofibrosis (post-ET MF). The diagnosis must be stated as post-ET MF; this would be a single primary. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
