Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200033 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primary tumors should be abstracted for a 2018 breast excision with a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0.7 cm) with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present as discontinuous foci, spanning 12 cm? See Discussion. |
If the term discontinuous foci means separate tumors, then rule M14 would apply making these multiple reportable tumors. |
Abstract two primaries, invasive mucinous and DCIS, using 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast, M14, as the discontinuous foci are separate tumors in this example and the histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the rules. |
2020 |
|
|
20200032 | Date of Diagnosis--Brain and CNS: How is the Date of Diagnosis coded when an MRI clinically diagnoses a borderline brain tumor on 4/4/2020, but the subsequent biopsy pathologically diagnoses a malignant brain tumor on 5/20/2020? See Discussion. |
Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date. For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed? |
This tumor was first diagnosed on 4/4/2020 according to the information provided. The pineocytoma was reportable based on a behavior of /1; it was later confirmed as a pineal germinoma; update both the histology and behavior on the abstract as better information was obtained, retaining the original date of diagnosis. |
2020 |
|
|
20200031 | Histology/Behavior--Breast: How are histology and behavior coded for a case originally diagnosed as in situ and later an invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed but still a single primary using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M10? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary? |
Update the histology and behavior based on the invasive tumor when an invasive tumor is diagnosed within 5 years of an in situ tumor in the same breast. This will be updated in the 2021 revisions of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules. |
2020 |
|
|
20200030 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned for the following patient scenario? 1) 09/2014 Left upper lobe (LUL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with lobectomy. 2) 04/2016 Right lower lobe (RLL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with wedge resection. 3) 04/2019 (within 3 years, but masked full date) Left lower lobe (LLL), unifocal, non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) with brain metastasis. See Discussion. |
Rule M4 does not seem to apply because Note 1 defines clinically disease free to mean no evidence of recurrence in the same lung on follow-up. Patient had been disease free in the left lung after 09/2014 diagnosis. The 04/2019 diagnosis was in a different lung than the 4/2016 diagnosis. The next applicable rule is either M11 or M14 depending on how we should compare the new 2019 tumor: to the most recent prior tumor in 2016 or to both prior tumors. |
Abstract three primary tumors according to the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules as follows : 2014: LUL, single primary using M2 2016: RLL, multiple primary; abstract second primary using M11 (different lung) 2019: LLL, multiple primary after reapplying rules using M4 when comparing to the same lung in 2014. Abstract this tumor as it has been more than three years and it appears the patient had no clinical evidence of disease in the left lung until 2019. |
2020 |
|
|
20200029 | Systemic/Surgery Sequence: The note associated with code 4 in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence in the 2018 SEER Manual says: Code 4 is intended for situations with at least two episodes or courses of systemic therapy. Does this mean two different types of systemic therapy before and after surgery? See Discussion. |
For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery? |
Assign code 4 for the example you describe. Code 4 also applies to cases with one course of chemotherapy before surgery and another course after surgery. |
2020 |
|
|
20200028 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor/EOD Mets--Lung: Is EOD Primary Tumor coded to 500 and EOD Mets 10 when there are bilateral lung nodules with nodules in same lobe as the primary tumor? How is EOD Primary Tumor coded when separate tumor nodes are in an ipsilateral lung but there is no documentation as to whether it is in the same or different ipsilateral lobe from the primary tumor? |
Assign 999 to EOD Primary Tumor if this is the only information you have for your case.The mention of nodules does not automatically mean that you have separate tumor nodules. There are many reasons for the appearance of nodules in the lung, some of which are not due to cancer. Unless you have further information on whether the physician has determined that they are related to the lung cancer, then assume that they are not related. Assign 00 to EOD Mets. Do not code EOD Mets to 10 since you cannot determine whether those nodules are based on the tumor or not. If you are able to obtain more information, then you can update the EOD Primary Tumor and EOD Mets. Regarding the second question, if separate tumor nodules are noted, you cannot assume that they are due to tumor. Further information, or clarification, is needed on whether the separate tumor nodules are related to the lung cancer. Without further information, code EOD Primary Tumor to 999. There is also some information in the CAnswer Forum since Separate Tumor Nodules are a Site-Specific Data Item: http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/forum/site-specific-data-items-grade-2018/96061-lung-separate-tumor-nodules |
2020 | |
|
|
20200027 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging? SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list? |
Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable. |
2020 |
|
|
20200026 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Lung: How should EOD Primary Tumor be coded when imaging describes a large left upper lobe 9.1 cm mass that Also noted is no pleural effusion and normal chest wall. See Discussion. |
It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized. An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan. |
Assign code 400 as the term "traverses" indicates involvement with extension to the major fissure and is no longer confined to the left lobe. |
2020 |
|
|
20200025 | Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion. |
The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies? |
Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else. If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability. |
2020 |
|
|
20200024 | Reportability/Histology--Fallopian Tube: Is germ cell neoplasia in situ reportable? If so, is the histology and behavior 9064/2? See Discussion. |
Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation). |
Report germ cell neoplasia in situ as 9064/2. Override the site/type edit. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
