Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. | In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology. Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion. |
2009 |
|
|
20091115 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Melanoma: How many primaries are reported when a patient presents with a malignant melanoma (NOS) and a separate lentigo maligna, both on right chest? See Discussion. | MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, two primaries are to be reported for this case. Rule M5 applies because there is a difference in the histology codes at the third digit.
Clarifications regarding histologic types of melanoma will be added to the rules when they are revised. |
2009 |
|
|
20091060 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a case in which a second tumor occurs in an area previously involved by direct extension from a prior primary located in an adjacent site? See Discussion. | Patient diagnosed in August 2007 with squamous cell carcinoma in the right tonsil. This tumor extended to the base of tongue. Treatment consisted of radiation and chemotherapy. In May 2008, the patient was found to have squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this case? Rule M7 states that tumors in sites with ICD-O topography codes that are different at the second or third character are multiple primaries. The topography code for base of tongue differs from that of tonsil. Would rule M7 apply? On the other hand, the base of tongue was involved by the tonsil primary which was diagnosed less than one year before. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The May 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. Base of tongue involvement was originally present in August 2007. The May 2008 diagnosis does not represent new tumor. The 2007 rules apply to new tumors only; therefore, the 2007 rules do not apply to this case. |
2009 |
|
|
20091032 | Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: How should this field be coded for an ovarian primary when there is a BSO and only the fundus of uterus is removed (not a full hysterectomy)? | Assign surgery code 52 [Bilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy; WITH hysterectomy]. Code 52 does not exclude a partial hysterectomy. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091065 | Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a non-Hodgkins lymphoma case with scans that show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules and a large mediastinal mass? See Discussion. |
Patient presented with large bulky mediastinal mass. CT showed no pleural effusion. Findings also show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules. Biopsy of mediastinal mass showed malignant B-cell lymphoma of follicle center cell origin. Abdomen /Pelvis CT showed borderline lymph nodes in bifurcation. Clinical diagnosis was probable stage 3 if not 4 lymphoma. Per lymphoma guidelines, if extra-nodal primary site is assigned to the extranodal site if an extra-nodal site and its regional lymph nodes are involved. Would the parenchymal lung nodules be indicative of pulmonary involvement? If so, would primary site be lung? Or, would the parenchymal nodules be stage 4 disease and primary site be assigned to lymph nodes? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, this answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Code Primary Site to C779 [Lymph node, NOS]. In this case, there is no statement that lymphoma involves the lung. "Nonspecific parenchymal lung nodules" are not indicative of lymphoma involvement. Consequently, this cannot be assumed to be an extra-nodal lymphoma. Additionally, it is not clear whether or not the "borderline" pelvic lymph nodes are involved. If the physician cannot provide more information, follow instruction 4.e in the SEER manual on page 72. 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. |
2009 |
|
|
20091108 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion. | Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries. MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary. Histologies described by the terms "pattern" and "component" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies. |
2009 |
|
|
20091125 |
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma. |
Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. | 2009 |
|
|
20091122 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries-Brain: Does a glioblastoma multiforme following a low grade glioma (oligodendroglioma) represent a new primary? See Discussion. | In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, glioblastoma multiforme following oligodendroglioma are multiple primaries according to rule M8. Rule M6 does not apply. M6 applies only to glial tumors as listed in chart 1. Chart 1 is based on the WHO classification. The WHO classification separates oligodendroglial tumors from glial tumors. | 2009 |
|
|
20091117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. | 2009 |
|
|
20091102 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. | Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. | 2009 |
An official website of the United States government
