Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160029 | Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion. |
We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct? |
I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions. |
2016 |
|
|
20160065 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type described as adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous which involves multiple lung tumors present in a single lobe? See Discussion. |
The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated. |
Assign histology code 8254/3.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not include coding guidelines for mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors. Lung Table 1 (in the Terms and Definitions, pages 37-38, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf ) is very specific about which histologies can be coded to mixed adenocarcinoma (8255/3). Mucinous is not included per the note at the end of Table 1. Per WHO 3rd and 4th Ed Tumors of the Lung, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors of the lung are classified as 8254/3. Mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma is a synonym for BAC, mucinous and non-mucinous. |
2016 |
|
|
20160001 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information? |
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information. |
2016 |
|
|
20160066 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type of "invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma" for a single breast tumor? See Discussion. |
The patient had a partial mastectomy with final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma. Knowing that metaplastic breast carcinoma has a worse prognosis than other types of breast cancer, is metaplastic stroma a synonym for metaplastic carcinoma when used in this context? |
Code to metaplastic carcinoma, 8575/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The term 'metaplastic stroma' implies that at least a portion of the carcinoma has undergone a 'metaplastic' change from epithelial in appearance to 'stromal' in appearance. I assume this is what CAP means by 'Invasive mammary carcinoma with matrix production,' which the WHO equates to metaplastic carcinoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20160013 | Reportability--Breast: Is mammary fibromatosis reportable and if so, what histology code is assigned? See discussion. |
The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor. |
Mammary fibromatosis is not reportable. The WHO classification for breast tumors assigns mammary fibromatosis a behavior code of /1. According to WHO, mammary fibromatosis "is a locally infiltrative lesion without metastatic potential…" |
2016 |
|
|
20160024 | Reportability--Melanoma: Please explain how a CTR is to interpret the guideline in the MP/H rules (Cutaneous Melanoma): Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Is this to mean that evolving melanoma in situ is not reportable? Or should we follow the guidelines in SEER Question 20130022 that states the reportability terms for melanoma and melanoma in situ. |
Follow the guidelines in SINQ 20130022 for now. When the MP/H rules are revised, new instructions will be implemented.
See also SINQ 200120078 and 20110069. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160071 | SEER Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: Can Clark's level classification still used to Summary Stage melanoma? It was previously used by AJCC TNM, but was not included in the 7th edition. I see it is still listed in the CAP protocols for melanoma. |
Clark's level can be used to assign in situ, localized or regional summary stage.
If there is a discrepancy between the Clark’s level and the pathologic description of extent, use the higher Summary Stage code. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160010 | Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion. |
We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems? |
Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).
|
2016 |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
2016 |
|
|
20160007 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: If the diagnosis is a single primary involving both breasts, do we code 41 Surgery Primary site with 1 in Surgery Other site, or code 76 Surgery Primary site with 0 in Surgery Other site? See discussion. |
In Appendix C- Breast (SEER Manual 2015) it states under the codes for TOTAL MASTECTOMY (Codes 40-49, 75): For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294). [SEER Note: Example of single primary with removal of involved contralateral breast--Inflammatory carcinoma involving both breasts. Bilateral simple mastectomies. Code Surgery of Primary Site 41 and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site 1.] HOWEVER, underneath that it states code 76 is used for: 76 Bilateral mastectomy for a single tumor involving both breasts, as for bilateral inflammatory carcinoma. So |
Assign code 41 with 1 in surgery other site for simple mastectomy. Assign code 76 with 0 in surgery other site for a more extensive mastectomy. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
