Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown?
Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved?
Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired.
Reportability/Behavior Code--Soft Tissue: Is a final diagnosis of a forearm mass diagnosed as "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma [see note]" reportable? The NOTE reads "Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a low grade borderline lesion with a tendency for local recurrence, but a very low potential for distant metastases." Is behavior /1 or /3?
Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is reportable with a behavior code of /3 according to ICD-O-3. The Final Diagnosis takes precedence over the "note."
Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms "lytic" or "lysis" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition?
Although the term "lytic lesion" is often used to describe bone lesions and "tumor lysis" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words.
P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.
The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.
Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?
Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.
Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).
All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion.
Reportability: Is AIN III reportable if it arises in the perianal skin? See Discussion.
Physical exam states patient has a suspicious area of anal skin. Operative findings show a raised, suspicious lesion in the right perianal region. Our interpretation of the primary site would be skin and therefore not reportable. However, the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicates "AIN III/squamous cell carcinoma with focal areas suspicious for microinvasion. "SINQ #20041056 states that AIN III is reportable.
AIN III of the anus or anal canal (C210-C211) is reportable. AIN III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445) is not reportable.
First Course Therapy: Are radio immune labeled antibodies, such as Bexxar [Tositum--I-131] coded as immunotherapy, radiotherapy, or experimental therapy?
Agents such as Bexxar or Zevalin are radioisotopes and coded as radiation. These agents destroy cancer cells with radiation.
Final Dx for left Breast biopsy: Atypical epithelial proliferation (ADH/DCIS). Comment: Sections show small focus of atypical epithelial proliferation with features of atypical duct hyperplasia/low grade duct carcinoma in-situ.
ADH/DCIS is reportable. DCIS (duct carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When DCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case.
Primary site/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site and histology coded for a 2013 diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma arising in a dermoid cyst of the third ventricle? See Discussion.
Patient has a dermoid cyst of the third ventricle of the brain diagnosed in 1998. In 2013 the cyst was removed and was diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma. An internet search revealed a journal article in the Journal or Neuro-Oncology that states, "Although rare, malignant transformation of intracranial epithelial cysts has a poor prognosis." The combination of site C715 [third ventricle, NOS] and histology 8070/3 [squamous cell carcinoma] fails SEER Edit IF 38_3: Primary site and Morphology Impossible.
According to the literature, intracranial squamous cell carcinoma is very rare with most cases arising from a preexisting benign epidermoid cyst. The combination of C71_ and 8070/3 should be allowed. We will submit a request to have this edit revised.
An official website of the United States government
Home