Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is epidermoid tumor of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) and trigeminal vesicle nerve reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See discussion.
Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor.
Epidermoid tumor of the brain is not reportable. There is no ICD-O-3 code for epidermoid tumor or epidermoid cyst. This type of tumor is often referred to as a cyst because it has a thin wall that secretes a soft material into the center.
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: What estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) values should be coded in a case with two separate tumors (1 ductal, 1 lobular) diagnosed simultaneously in the same breast (single primary) with differing ER/PR values for each tumor? One is ER/PR positive; the other is ER/PR negative.
In cases where ER (or PR) is reported on more than one tumor specimen, record the highest value. If any sample is positive, record as positive.
Guidance on Collaborative Stage (CS) site-specific factors (SSFs) in the breast schema can be found in the SEER Registrar Staging Assistant (SEER*RSA): SSF1-Estrogen Receptor (ER) Assay and SSF2-Progesterone Receptor (PR) Assay.
Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is neoplasm consistent with carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma reportable as a teratoma, NOS, and if yes, what is the histology code?
Carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma or well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), monodermal teratoma of the testis is reportable. Assign 8240/3 according to the WHO classification for this neoplasm.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the histology code of invasive adenocarcinoma, non-mucinous with intraductal tubulopapillary features, moderately differentiated, from the pathology report final diagnosis of the pancreas? Does 'intraductal" refer to a non-invasive/in-situ component or describe the pattern of growth?
Assign 8503/3, intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma with invasion, to capture the more specific features of the adenocarcinoma. Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites states to code the most specific histologic term. Examples include Adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma. Note: The specific histology may be identified as type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation.
Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: How should the primary site and stage be coded for osteosarcoma of breast? Is C509 correct or should the code be a different primary site? When assigning C509, the Collaborative Stage (CS) still pertains to breast cancer and AJCC stages it as a breast cancer and not as a sarcoma.
Code primary osteosarcoma of the breast to breast, C500-C509. Not all site and histology combinations can be staged in CS or AJCC. 9180/3 of breast cannot be staged using the CS breast schema. Breast (C500-C509) cannot be staged using the CS soft tissue schema. The same is true for AJCC. You can stage this case using SEER Summary Stage.
Important: Do NOT change the primary site or histology code based on whether or not the case can be CS or AJCC staged. We need to know how many cases are unable to be staged because of their primary site and histology combinations.
Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion.
Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia.
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for an initial biopsy of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a subsequent re-biopsy showing poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma after chemotherapy with no response? See discussion.
Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states "feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo."
Code to 8041, small cell carcinoma, because the medical opinon confirms that this was the correct histology from the begining.
"Possible" is not an ambiguous term used to code histology. The MP/H rules do not include coding phenotype. That leaves non-small cell (8046/3) at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy does not alter cell type so its likely the tumor was small cell all along only now proven with additional testing.
Page 14 of the SEER Coding Manual gives examples of when to change the abstract's original codes and here is one example: When better information is available later. Example 1: Consults from specialty labs, pathology report addendums or comments or other information have been added to the chart. Reports done during the diagnostic workup and placed on the chart after the registrar abstracted the information may contain valuable information. Whenever these later reports give better information about the histology, grade of tumor, primary site, etc., change the codes to reflect the better information.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion.
At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.
This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?
Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home