Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210067 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further? |
Clarify the statement of "excellent" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210049 | Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Leukemia: Is this the correct histology for a case of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with recurrent genetic abnormalities? If the only information was AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities,"what code would you use: AML, NOS (9861/3) or AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities (9896/3)? See Discussion. |
12/3/2020 Pathology: AML: Blasts 40% of nucleated cells. CD45 positive, CD34 negative, CD 117+, CD13 positive, CD33 positive in 59.6% and HLA-DR was dim and myeloperoxidase was dim. Cytogenetics normal karyotype. The next generation sequencing detected IDH 2p.(R172K)c515>A. Because this was AML NOS, we consulted with the physician. The physician stated the patient had AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities"and the basis for the diagnosis was the IDH-2 mutation identified on Next Generation Sequencing. We assigned 9896/3, based on the physician's interpretation of the pathology. This histology is being questioned. |
We found that the term AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS"was incorrectly included as an alternate name with code 9896/3. We followed back with our expert hematopathologist and he stated that this should have been coded to 9861/3 (AML, NOS), for AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS. This alternate name has been added to 9861/3. (Note: The same alternate name has been removed from 9896/3). IDH-2 is not listed as a genetic abnormality for any of the histologies listed in the database. It could be that this is a new genetic marker for one of the AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities that we are not aware of. Without further clarification on which histology the IDH-2 would indicate, you would have to default to 9861/3. There are several histologies that are grouped as AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities."All of these have specific genetics listed as part of the ICD-O-3 histology name. 9865: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(6;9)(p23;q34.1) DEK-NUP214 9866: Acute promyelocytic leukemia with PML-RARA 9869: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2); GATA2, MECOM 9871: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11 9877: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (2021+) 9878: Acute myeloid leukemia with biallelic mutation of CEBPA (2021+) 9879: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated RUNX1 (2021+) 9896: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1); RUNX1-RUNX1T1 9897: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(9;11)(p21.3;q23.3); KMT2A-MLLT3 9911: Acute myeloid leukemia (megakaryoblastic) with t(1;22)(p13.3;q13.1); RBM15-MKL1 9912: Acute myeloid leukemia with BCR-ABL1 (2021)+ Of note, for the above histologies, since these are diagnosed solely based on genetics, diagnostic confirmation will always be 3. This instruction will be added to the Hematopoietic database for the 2022 update. |
2021 |
|
|
20210061 | First course treatment/Update to current manual: Should the instruction regarding expectant management in the 2021 (and 2022) SEER Manual include how to code for the patient’s decision to proceed with expectant management? See Discussion. |
Currently, First Course Therapy instruction for expectant management (also referred to as active surveillance, watchful waiting, etc.) instructs one to code 0 or 00 (not done) for all data items when the physician opts for expectant management. We find that the treatment decisions can be driven by the patient, physician, or combination of both patient and physician depending on the options presented. |
Instructions for First Course of Therapy include using the documented first course of therapy (treatment plan) from the medical record. While a patient may weigh in on the treatment decision, the physician is responsible for developing and managing the treatment plan including closely watching a patient’s condition but not giving treatment unless symptoms appear or change. We can add language to a future manual to clarify. |
2021 |
|
|
20210054 | Tumor Size--Clinical/EOD 2018--Prostate: How is Tumor Size--Clinical coded when there is an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for another reason? See Discussion. |
SEER*RSA states EOD Primary Tumor should be coded to 800 for an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for other reasons. The SEER Manual states to assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800; however, the definition for Tumor Size--Clinical indicates clinical classification is composed only of diagnostic workup prior to treatment. If there is no clinical workup for an incidental finding of prostate cancer, code 000 does not seem appropriate (does not meet criteria for clinical classification). Code 999 seems more appropriate for incidental findings during surgery for other reasons. The SEER Manual does not provide this exception in the current instruction. |
Assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded 800 (No evidence of primary tumor). Code 000 indicates no tumor was found since there was no clinical workup to identify this incidentally found cancer. This is a special instruction for cases coded 800 in EOD Primary Tumor. Text fields can be used to record details. |
2021 |
|
|
20210015 | Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion. |
Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia). |
The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease. . |
2021 |
|
|
20210060 | Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a 2021 diagnosis of a type A microscopic thymoma reportable? See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3). January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A). |
Report this case as type A thymoma. We consulted an expert physician and his advice on this specific case is to interpret it as a malignancy and report. Use text fields to record the details of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20210030 | Primary site--Breast: Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast. Site of mass is 2:00 to 3:00. What is the correct site code, C504 upper outer quadrant (UOQ) or C50.8 (overlapping)? |
Assign C504, UOQ, for a left breast primary mass at 2:00 to 3:00. See the illustration in the SEER Coding Guidelines for breast, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/AppendixC/Coding_Guidelines_Breast_2021.pdf |
2021 | |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
|
|
20210009 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H4 be used to code the histology to regressing melanoma? See Discussion. |
Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule? |
Coding regressing melanoma has been an issue as registrars may not realize it is a reportable histology. Hence, H4 was written to reinforce correct histology. A note will be added to H1 instructing registrars to continue thru rules when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210031 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are lipomas of the spinal column reportable as a benign tumor of the central nervous system (CNS)? This is seen occassionally at our pediatric facility. |
Spinal cord tumors (including lipomas) are reportable when they arise in the spinal dura or nerve root. The tumor must be of the spinal cord itself or within the spinal cord dura. Spinal cord tumors are reportable when they arise in the intradural space. A reportable intradural tumor can be either intramedullary or extramedullary. Extramedullary intradural spinal tumors are reportable. A spinal tumor originating in the extradural space is not reportable. If it is outside the dura, it is not reportable because it would be outside the CNS. They are not reportable when they arise in the peripheral nerves. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
