Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150047 | Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion. |
The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic? |
Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer. |
2015 |
|
|
20150015 | Primary Site--Testis: What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11? See discussion. |
Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis? |
Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case. |
2015 |
|
|
20150064 | Primary site--Head & Neck: When there is invasive in one subsite and in situ in another, do you code the subsite with the invasive only? Would the correct site be C320, C328, or C329? See discussion. |
LARYNGOSCOPY - ENDOLARYNGEAL EXAM WAS GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE EXCEPT THAT SHE APPEARS TO HAVE A T1A SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF THE RIGHT TRUE VOCAL FOLD. IT EXTENDS FROM ALMOST THE ANTERIOR COMMISSURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VOCAL PROCESS AND IS EXOPHYTIC IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE VENTRICLE OR ONTO THE FALSE VOCAL FOLD. NO SUBGLOTTIC EXTENSION IS SEEN. A. RIGHT POSTERIOR FALSE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA IN SITU. B. RIGHT POSTERIOR TRUE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. C. RIGHT MID TRUE VOCAL CORD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. D. RIGHT ANTERIOR TRUE VOCAL FOLD, BIOPSY: INVASIVE AND IN SITU SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, MODERATELY DIFFERENTIATED. |
See the Head & Neck Terms and Definitions for guidance on coding the primary site, pages 17-18, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
Based on the information provided, use the statement from the endoscopy report and assign primary site to right true vocal fold [cord], C320. |
2015 |
|
|
20150018 | First course of treatment--Immunotherapy: Should Rituxan be coded to immunotherapy? See discussion. |
Is the instruction under #4.b. on page 114 of the 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual incorrect? It says to code Rituxan as chemotherapy. |
Rituxan changed categories from chemotherapy to a biologic therapy/Immunotherapy agent effective with cases diagnosed January 1, 2013. See page 150 or page 164 in the 2015 SEER manual. The instruction in the 2014 SEER manual was incorrect regarding Rituxan. |
2015 |
|
|
20150023 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: When is 8341/3, papillary microcarcinoma coded? The code description in ICD-O-3 is followed by (C739), yet there are two SINQ answers that tell us specifically to not use this code for thyroid primaries. Even the first revision of ICD-O-3 still carries the (C739) as part of this code, which goes against SINQ 20110027 and 20081127. |
Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid and thereby should be coded to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct. This information will be included in the upcoming revisions to the MP/H manual. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150022 | Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion. |
Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014. |
Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade. |
2015 |
|
|
20150058 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries. |
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150062 | Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2) |
The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder. |
Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
1. Assign grade code 2
2. Assign grade code 4
See the note below the table in instruction #7. |
2015 |
|
|
20150067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion. |
Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant. |
Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150003 | Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ). |
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
|
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
