Reportability--Skin: Is a pilomatrix carcinoma of the skin reportable if it is described as being a malignant diagnosis based on poor circumscription, infiltrative growth pattern, and focal abundant mitoses?
No. Pilomatrix carcinoma is not reportable to SEER. Please see page 1 of the 2004 SEER manual. Skin primaries with histology codes from 8090 to 8110 are not reportable. Pilomatrix carcinoma is coded 8110/3.
Histology (Pre-2007): Is histology for an anorectal biopsy of "Cloacogenic carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma with basaloid features)" coded to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma] or 8083/3 [Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma]. These are squamous cell carcinomas of basaloid type that are found in the cloacogenic (transitional) zone of the anal canal.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.
Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS.
Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.
Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.
Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false.
Histology/Polyp--Colon: Which histology code is used when a colon biopsy states adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp, but the resection path states only adenocarcinoma, and does not mention arising in a polyp. See Discussion.
This scenario occurs frequently and our QC staff is divided on which code to use.
03-24-06 Rectal Polyp: Adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated. 6-29-06 Rectum: Adenoca, MD, invades into the submucosa. No malignancy (0/15) LNs.
Use the polyp information from the biopsy and code adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp (8210, 8261 or 8263 as appropriate).
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: If an orchiectomy specimen contains non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor and a separate satellite of seminoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
Pathology: R Orchiectomy: 2.1 cm non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor (50% teratoma primarily mature, 50% embryonal CA and yolk sac tumor). Located 3cm from the main tumor is a 2mm satellite pure seminoma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is a single primary because the first three digits of the ICD-O-3 histology codes are the same, according to Rule 3a on page 11 of the 2004 SEER manual. Code the histology 9065 [Germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. Code 9065 is preferred over the less-specific code of 9061 [Seminoma, NOS].
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion.
CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.
The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.
Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is this field coded to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy] or 33 [Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection] when a lobectomy specimen includes 2 AP window lymph nodes? See Discussion.
LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded
Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?
Code surgery of primary site to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy]. According to the information provided, there was no lymph node dissection in this case. The 2 AP window nodes were obtained as part of the lobectomy specimen.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home