Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150020 | Reportability/Primary site--Skin: Is a basal cell carcinoma of the lip "ever" reportable and if so, what would need to be documented or seen? See discussion. |
There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text. Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090. On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through. SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions? It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual. Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000. |
BCC of lip C00_ is rare and requires a statement that the tumor is on the vermilion border (rather than skin) to be coded C00_ and to be reported. Our expert pathologist consultant refers to an article in the Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50(3): 384-387. |
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 | |
|
|
20150021 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is histology coded for an "endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma with transformation to mucinous carcinoma"? See Discussion. |
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)? |
Assign 8480/3.
There is no mixed ICD-O-3 code for EMPSCG. Both histologies are in the mucinous family: mucinous adenocarcinoma (8480/3) and sweat gland carcinoma (8400/3). Apply Other sites rule H17 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8480/3).
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) is a rare low-grade sweat gland carcinoma with a strong predilection to the eyelid region. It is histologically analogous to endocrine ductal carcinoma/solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and is characterized by a multinodular solid cystic mucinous tumor with immunoreactivity to neuroendocrine markers. Only 20 cases of this unusual tumor have been reported. |
2015 |
|
|
20150050 | Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion. |
Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2). Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2). |
2015 |
|
|
20150066 | Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.
|
Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade
Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm |
Assign 8201/2 for this case.
MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf
The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2015 |
|
|
20150067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion. |
Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant. |
Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma. |
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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20150015 | Primary Site--Testis: What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11? See discussion. |
Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis? |
Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
