Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180111 | Reportability/Histology--Appendix: Is high grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) diagnosed in 2018 reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma). Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed). Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis? |
2022 and later HAMN is reportable. Assign 8480/2. |
2018 |
|
|
20140010 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation. | 1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4. Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis. Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20190080 | Update to current manual/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes--Melanoma: Can the operative report be used to assess margins if there is no residual melanoma on the wide excision and no margins stated, or if distance is not stated on the pathology report when there is residual melanoma? See Discussion. |
1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins? 2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell? 3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now. |
1. You may take margin information from the operative report if it is missing from the pathology report when assigning the surgery codes for skin.
2. The rule applies to any skin malignancy for which the skin surgery codes apply. 3. SEER, CoC, NPCR, NCRA, NAACCR, and the Canadian registries participated in this decision. SEER is publishing this SINQ question for reference. |
2019 |
|
|
20000849 | Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should you code the primary site for a lymphoma that presents with involvement of an extranodal site and regional lymph nodes? See discussion. | 1. Lymphoma involves the spleen and the splenic lymph nodes.
2. MALT Lymphoma involves the stomach and the gastric and iliac lymph nodes. |
1. Code the Primary Site field to C42.2 [spleen].
2. Code the Primary Site field to C16._ [stomach].
When lymphoma presents in an extranodal site and in the regional lymph nodes for that extranodal site, code the Primary Site field to the extranodal site. The typical disease process is that lymphoma can spread from an extranodal organ to its regional lymph nodes. It cannot metastasize from the regional lymph node to the extranodal organ. The exception to this would be if the lymph nodes presented as one large mass that extended into the regional organ. |
2000 |
|
|
20010033 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: 1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)? 2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)? |
1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field. 2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because "grade" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9. |
2001 | |
|
|
20230044 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Breast: What pathology report descriptions are permissible to use in coding the Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect data item? See Discussion. |
1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only "treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%? 2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used? For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a "moderate burden" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions? |
1) Do not infer the percent of viable tumor if only percent of necrosis is provided. For the example, assign code 6 when Neoadjuvant therapy was completed and the treatment effect in the breast is stated only as “Present". 2) Do not use the residual cancer burden (RCB) score from the pathology report to code the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect field for breast cancer. We do not have a crosswalk from RCB to neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect. RCB index is an accurate and reliable tool to assess patient prognosis. RCB is estimated from routine pathologic sections of the primary breast tumor site and the regional lymph nodes after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy. The data item Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect records information on the primary tumor only. Document information in a text field in both examples. |
2023 |
|
|
20140029 | MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?
2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code? |
1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. |
2014 | |
|
|
20051073 | Reportability/Behavior--Colon: Is a final diagnosis of "mucosal carcinoid" of the colon reportable with a behavior code 2 [in situ] or 3 [invasive] if the microscopic description states that a "malignancy is not appreciated"? See Discussion. | 2002 carcinoid case. Path final diagnosis: sigmoid colon polyp, bx-- sm mucosal carcinoid (1.5mm) w/crush artifact in a colonic polyp showing assoc inflammatory and hyperplastic changes. Micro: due to prominent crush artifact, histologic detail is compromised; however, significant atypia or malignancy is not appreciated. Our state registry requests that this case be abstracted using the histology code 8240/3 because it is a mucosal carcinoid. AJCC states TIS as being confined w/i basement membrane w/no extension through muscularis mucosae into submucosa. SEER-EOD codes as invasive: mucosa, lamina propria and muscularis mucosae. Our pathologist goes along with AJCC while we are having to code with SEER rules. |
1) Assign /3 to mucosal carcinoid, unless stated to be in situ in the final diagnosis. ICD-O-3 is the reference for assigning the behavior code, not AJCC, EOD or CS. 2) The ICD-O-3 code for carcinoid of the sigmoid colon is C187 8240/3. This is reportable to SEER based on the final diagnosis above. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis. |
2005 |
|
|
20130189 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion. |
With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction? |
'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors. Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions. |
2013 |
|
|
20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
