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: 04/26/2025 09:53 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180034

Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion.

In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?

Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it.

WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable.

 2018
20180023

Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.

This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.

Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.

 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
20180109

Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later.

Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later

For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology.

 2018
20180082

Summary Stage Manual 2018 "Lymphoma: SEER Summary Stage 2000 states: For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement and is used to determine the number and location of lymph node chains involved (see lymphoma scheme). This statement is not in SEER Summary Stage 2018. Does that mean we follow rules #4-7, pages 14-15, under Code 3: Regional Lymph Nodes only, for every site, including lymphoma?

The following statement "Any mention of the terms including fixed, matted, mass in the hilum, mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and/or mesentery, palpable, enlarged, shotty, lymphadenopathy are all regarded as involvement for lymphomas when determining appropriate code," is included in EOD Primary Tumor and is applicable to Summary Stage 2018.

The statement will be added as note 4 to the Lymphoma Summary Stage chapter. This will be included in the 2019 update (estimated release January 2019).

 2018
20180026

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.

The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as "Lesion 1" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.

The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?

Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as "Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.

Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.

 2018
20190083

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be reported when metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate is diagnosed at the same time as adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.

Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside.

Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology?

Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] per Rule M17 of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules 2018, as these are different histologies with different histology codes at the second number.

Adenocarcinoma of prostate often manifests as a small cell carcinoma following treatment or as a progression of disease. It is important to capture these tumors as new primaries.

 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
20190090

Update to current manual/Extent of Disease/Summary Stage 2018--Fallopian Tube: How are behavior, EOD Primary Tumor, and Summary Stage 2018 coded for a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) of the fallopian tube? See Discussion.

The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table lists serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (C57.0) with a behavior code of 2.

The EOD Primary Tumor schema for Fallopian Tube shows STIC has an extension code of 100. It also maps code 100 to Summary Stage 2018 L (localized).

Summary Stage 2018 for fallopian tube only documents that intraepithelial tumors are summary stage 0 (in situ).

We are aware of the issue and have been in discussion with standard setters (SEER, NPCR, AJCC, and NAACCR). At this time, we recommend coding:

Histology: 8441/2

Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor: 000

Summary Stage: 0

AJCC Clin/Path T would be 88, since all in situ lesions are not applicable.

Edits will not allow you to have a 8441/2 with a T1. Also, EOD is not currently set up to derive the correct T value, unless you code 100.

The change to address the issue will take effect in 2021.

 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