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: 04/03/2025 22:20 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180004

Reportability/MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Is a ganglioneuroblastoma (9490/3) following a melanoma (8720/3) a new primary if the diagnosing pathologist states: "Given the clinical context and patient age, then I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma'? If this is a new primary, what MP/H rule would apply? See Discussion.

March 2017 lung biopsy showing metastatic melanoma. Subsequent workup shows imaging with additional metastatic involvement of multiple bone sites but no primary tumor is identified. Chemotherapy is started in May 2017.

July 2017 biopsy of right lower quadrant mass has a final diagnosis of ganglioneuroblastoma and pathologist's comment states I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma. Later, partial colectomy of transverse colon Gross Description indicates this was centered in the mesentery.

Abstract two primaries: 1. unknown primary site and 2. peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of abdomen, based on Multiple Primaries/Histology for Other Sites Rule M11 (topography codes that differ at the second or third character). While it is possible in rare cases that one tumor transforms into the other, transformations do not factor into the current MP/H rules.

 2018
20180040

Reportability--Kidney: Is congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma reportable for a newborn baby? See discussion.

2015 Rt kidney nephrectomy pathology states: congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma, tumor sz 5.9cm, tumor limited to kidney, extension into pelvicalyceal system, margin not applicable, LVI negative. Per PubMed.gov: (In newborns) among the low-grade malignant tumors, congenital mesoblastic nephromas can be successfully treated with simple nephrectomy. Per ScienceDirect: ...currently thought that cellular mesoblastic nephroma is actually a renal variant of infantile fibrosarcoma.

Do not report congenital mesoblastic nephroma (8960/1). Congenital mesoblastic mephromas are low-grade fibroblastic neoplasms of the infantile renal sinus according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. The WHO classification is the standard used to determine behavior and histology for entities not listed in ICD-O-3.

 2018
20180021

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Corpus uteri: What is the correct histology code for "Mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma" of the corpus uteri?" See Discussion.

The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?

Assign code 9110/3, mesonephric adenocarcinoma. These tumors commonly arise in the cervical wall and more commonly involve the lower uterine segment than do other cervical adenocarcinomas.

 2018
20180077

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue? Is p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive (8085)? See Discussion.

Table 6 (Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids) in the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions lists both squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative as subtypes/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (the NOS histology, 8070). Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative are also listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 update table.

Previous clarification from the standard setters regarding the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table indicated that histology codes 8085 and 8086 (HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma, respectively) included p16+ and p16- squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. Presumably, this clarification was made because p16 is a surrogate marker for HPV, and capturing whether a tumor is HPV-related or not has implications for staging for 2018 and later diagnoses. However, this clarification was not added to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table via errata, nor do the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions or Histology Coding Rules address this.

Is a diagnosis of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive (8085)? If so, will this clarification be added to the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules?

HPV-positive is not equivalent to HPV-mediated (p16+). According to the 2018 SEER Manual, HPV-type 16 refers to virus type and is different from p16 overexpression (p16+). HPV status is determined by tests designed to detect viral DNA or RNA. Tests based on ISH, PCR, RT-PCR technologies detect the viral DNA or RNA; whereas, the test for p16 expression, a surrogate marker for HPV, is IHC. HPV testing must be positive by viral detection tests in order to code histology as 8085.

 2018
20180013

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are tuberous sclerosis cancers found in the brain reportable? See Discussion.

I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis.

SEGA (Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma) is reportable if diagnosed in 2004 or later. Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is not a neoplasm and is not reportable. SEGA is a neoplasm that commonly occurs in TSC patients.

Refer to the reportability instructions on pages 5-7 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf

 2018
20180045

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion.

For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?

In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under "Additional Pathologic Findings." The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology.

When there are multiple histologies and

1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or

2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes)

Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer.

 2018
20180081

Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is endometrial atypical complex hyperplasia/borderline endometrial adenocarcinoma (FIGO 1), (mucinous type), (no invasion of myometrium) reportable?

Do not report this case based on the information provided. The actual diagnosis is somewhere between atypical hyerpplasia and carcinoma in situ. Do not report until/unless a more definitively reportable diagnosis is made.

 2018
20180031

First Course of Treatment/Other Therapy: Where do you code Optune TTF therapy? What needs to be included in the text portion to document this treatment?

Code OPTUNE in the Other Treatment field. See NovaTTF in SEER*Rx (http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/). NovaTTF is the pre-FDA approval name for OPTUNE.

If OPTUNE was administered for recurrence, be sure NOT to record it in the first course of treatment fields. Check with CoC if you have questions about coding treatment for recurrence.

 2018
20180069

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion.

Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.

There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior.

The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors

Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present.

 2018
20180001

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion.

The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.

The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.

Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields.

 2018