Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150007 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion. |
4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
|
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150044 | Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?" See discussion. |
Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants |
Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66. |
2015 |
|
|
20150049 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable? |
Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor. |
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 | |
|
|
20150041 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular. |
Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150051 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is schwannoma of the extracranial part of a cranial nerve reportable? Some cranial nerves, like facial nerve, have intracranial and extracranial branches. |
An extracranial schwannoma is not reportable. The schwannoma must arise on the intracranial part of the nerve to be reportable. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150030 | First course treatment--Surgical rocedure of other sites: How is this field coded when the patient undergoes a lung wedge resection for a pulmonary nodule that was never definitively or was ambiguously stated to be a metastasis? See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.
The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?
|
Code 0 for Surgical Procedure of Other Site in this case. The Surgical Procedure of Other Site field is used to capture surgery to destroy or modify cancer tissue that is not captured in other surgery fields. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20150038 | Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? |
Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) is reportable because it is malignant. Assign 8005/3 to malignant PEComa.
We consulted an ICD-O-3 expert who explained that some PEComas such as angiomyolipoma and lymphangiomyomatosis have specific ICD-O codes and their malignant counterparts may be coded to 8860/3 and 9174/3 respectively. There are no separate ICD-O codes for other specific PEComas, e.g., clear cell “sugar” tumor of lung, clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the falciform ligament and some “unusual” clear cell tumors occurring in other organs—or for PEComa, NOS. These PEComas may therefore be coded to 8005 as clear cell tumors NOS; in other words as clear cell tumors that are not clear cell variants of carcinomas, sarcomas, or other specific tumor type.
Please note, PEComa is non-specific as to behavior. Unless the pathologist states that it is malignant, (as was the case for this question), the default code is 8005/1 (non-reportable). |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
