Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170018 | MPH Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Does MP/H Rule M7 (diagnosed more than 60 days apart) apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma, or are these further excision of the original diagnosis and the same primary, even when it appears treatment was complete after the initial excision? See Discussion. |
A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary. Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma. In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries. |
Rule M7 pertains to separate tumors. Rule M7 does not apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma. Based on the information provided, it is not clear whether or not the 5/10/16 diagnosis is a separate lesion or the same lesion that was diagnosed earlier. |
2017 |
|
|
20140030 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why. |
Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140038 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries are there and which MP rules apply in this scenario? See discussion. |
Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries. |
Rule M9 applies. Abstract 2 primaries.
We will evaluate this scenario for the next version of the multiple primary rules. |
2014 |
|
|
20130214 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH20 apply if a patient with lymphoma has bilateral axillary and bilateral inguinal lymph node involvement? | Rule PH20 states to code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by ICD-O-3 are involved. Note 1 further states that one is to use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes. | Rule PH21 applies to this situation which states to code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. Axillary nodes are coded to C773 and inguinal nodes are coded to C774. There are two lymph node regions involved. Code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph nodes].
If this patient had only bilateral axillary OR only bilateral inguinal nodes are involved, then PH20 would have applied and you would code to the specific lymph node region mentioned. |
2013 |
|
|
20150039 | Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;". |
SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors. |
2015 | |
|
|
20071132 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable? |
Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable. |
2007 | |
|
|
20061118 | Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant? | Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site. If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site]. According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site. |
2006 | |
|
|
20170033 | Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion. |
Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report). WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise. |
See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors. Since this diagnosis includes "Well differentiated" and "Grade 2," assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "intermediate" fits best with grade 2. |
2017 |
|
|
20051027 | Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: If the only indication of grade for a bladder primary is "grade 2, NOS," and we do not know the grading system being used by the pathologist, is the numeric grade 2 coded? | See the General Coding Rules on page 92 of the 2004 SEER Manual for instructions about coding grade. If the only information available is "Grade 2," assign code 2 [Grade II]. |
2005 | |
|
|
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 |
An official website of the United States government
