Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110140 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How are behavior and histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ" if the microscopic examination section of the same pathology report states there are "foci suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma"? See Discussion. | The pathology report microscopic examination states, "focally, between ducts involved by DCIS, there are minute tubular structures associated with stromal fibrosis and chronic inflammation. These foci are suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma." | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code one primary with histology and behavior coded to 8522/2 [intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histology rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. The information provided does not specify whether this was a single tumor with DCIS and LCIS or multiple tumors with DCIS and LCIS. In this case, the number of tumors does not change the histology code for this patient. For this example, assume this disease process was a single tumor.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: In Situ Carcinoma Only module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H8. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology as 8522/2 (intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ) when there is a combination of in situ lobular (LCIS) [8520] and intraductal carcinoma (DCIS).
Do not code the behavior as invasive in this case. The pathologist indicated that these findings were "suspicious" but not definite in the microscopic examination. If the pathologist decided that this was truly an invasive tubular element, it would have been included in the final diagnosis.
|
2011 |
|
|
20110080 | Grade--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is this field coded for a non-invasive high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis? See Discussion. | Per instructions in the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Coding Guidelines for Bladder, "Code grade 9 (unknown) for non-invasive urothelial (transitional) tumors." The Coding Guidelines listed under Renal Pelvis, Ureter are only for Kidney [C649]. Do the grade instructions under bladder apply to ALL non-invasive urothelial tumors, or are we to use the kidney grading instructions to code grade for renal pelvis and ureter malignancies? | Code grade to 4 [high grade]. Follow the instructions in the main part of the 2010 SEER Manual under the data item Grade (pages 73 - 76). There are no specific instructions for coding grade for renal pelvis. Apply the general instructions in the absence of site-specific instructions. | 2011 |
|
|
20110040 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion. |
Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma." |
No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm. We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed. |
2011 |
|
|
20110150 | Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of "consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome"? See Discussion. | The physician states the "patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS." Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, "The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome."
Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .
The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 |
|
|
20110029 | DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion. | Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?
In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206). |
For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. | 2011 |
|
|
20110093 | Residence at dx: After living elsewhere (Florida) and traveling around the country in an RV with his spouse, is a patient a resident of this area for either primary if he was diagnosed with his first primary less than a month after arriving in the area and a second primary more than a year after parking his RV here? |
Use the patient's usual residence to determine residency. If the usual residence is not known or the information is not available, use the residence the patient specifies at the time of diagnosis. The SEER rules for determining "usual residence" match the rules used by the US Census Bureau. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110090 | MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a? | According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2]. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110102 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: For cases diagnosed 2010 and later, are idiopathic thrombocytopenia and autoimmune thrombocytopenia reportable? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Idiopathic and autoimmune types of thrombocytopenia are not reportable. Thrombocytopenia and thrombocythemia are not synonyms. Cytopenia and cythemia have different definitions. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110077 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion. | A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries. | This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient. |
2011 |
|
|
20110038 | Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion. |
For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021 According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.
|
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
