Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081019 | Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:
According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same primary. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081120 | MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion. | A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007. The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1). Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary. |
2008 |
|
|
20081112 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion. | The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information. |
2008 |
|
|
20081097 | DCO/Systemic Treatment, Surgery Sequence: How does SEER want systemic treatment/surgery sequence coded for a DCO case? | Assign code 0 [No systemic therapy and/or surgical treatment] as a default for DCO cases. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081134 | MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion. |
Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors. The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules. |
2008 |
|
|
20081119 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion. |
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report. Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.) |
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case. The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly." The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology. |
2008 |
|
|
20081063 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion. | Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen." Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there"). | 2008 |
|
|
20081099 | MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion. | How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007. |
2008 |
|
|
20081113 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion. |
Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1. Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site? Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma. Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation. Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma. Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460 |
Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma. Examples 1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum] 2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis. 3. Not reportable. Not a brain tumor. |
2008 |
|
|
20081141 | MP/H Rules--Lung: How do we interpret 'spiculated opacities?' How many primaries do we abstract for this patient? See Discussion. |
Patient admitted for CT scan of chest. Impression: A small subpleural spiculated opacity is noted in the left upper lobe measuring 9.7x7.7mm. Right upper lobe spiculated nodular opacity measures 13.9x5.9mm. Right lower lobe scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities are noted. The lungs are otherwise clear. Abnormal soft tissue density mass is noted of the right hilum surrounding the distal main right pulmonary artery. Bronchoscopy/mediastinoscopy done: rare malignant cells present consistent with small cell carcinoma, specimen submitted as brushing of right bronchus intermedius. The tumor in the lymph node is metastatic small cell carcinoma. Patient discharged to hospice; died 5 weeks later. Do the MP/H rules pertain only to the measured opacities in each lung and not to the RLL scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities? The right side was cytologically confirmed. But if we abstract the left lung, what is the histology...8041 or 8000? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Because there was cytologic confirmation of cancer, for this case only count the spiculated opacities as tumors. Abstract as a single primary using Rule M1. Note 2 under lung rule M1 applies to this case. Code the histology as 8041 [small cell carcinoma] per rule H10. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
