Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170023 | Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion. |
We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below. PI-RADS (v2) categories: PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal) PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date? |
Updated answer PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary. PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis. |
2017 |
|
|
20170079 | Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus Uteri: Is surgery for a uterine corpus primary described as total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH-BSO) with specimens including uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, and bilateral parametria coded as a modified radical hysterectomy? It would be very helpful if an explanation of the difference between a total hysterectomy, modified radical hysterectomy, and radical hysterectomy can be included. See Discussion. |
Surgery text indicates TAH-BSO with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. The pathology report indicates the specimen includes: Uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, bilateral parametria. The Gross Description also indicates: Representative sections submitted in 16 cassettes as follows: A1: Anterior cervix A2: Posterior cervix A3: Full thickness anterior lower uterine segment A4: Full thickness posterior lower uterine segment A5: Tumor A6-A7: Full thickness anterior endomyometrium to include tumor A8-A10: Full thickness posterior endomyometrium with tumor A11: Representative sections of right fallopian tube and fimbria A12: Representative sections of right ovary A13: Representative sections of left fallopian tube and fimbria A14: Representative sections of left ovary A15: Right parametrial tissue A16: Left parametrial tissue A17-23: Remainder of cervix. |
Assign code 50: total hysterectomy with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(ies). Removes both the corpus and cervix uteri. It may also include a portion of the vaginal cuff. Both the radical and modified radical hysterectomy (code 60) include removal of part of the vagina, not mentioned in the pathology or surgery text. The SEER Glossary for Registrars defines the procedures as follows. Total hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the entire uterus, including the cervix Radical hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the uterus, cervix and part of the vagina. The ovaries, fallopian tubes and nearby lymph nodes may also be removed. Modified radical hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the uterus, cervix, upper part of the vagina, and nearby ligaments and tissues. Nearby lymph nodes may also be removed. In this type of surgery, not as many tissues and/or organs are removed as in a radical hysterectomy. |
2017 |
|
|
20170050 | First course of treatment/Other therapy--How do you code medical marijuana when given as "treatment?" See Discussion. |
The patient has gastric cancer and the physician prescribed medical marijuana as treatment. SEER*Rx says marijuana is ancillary as a psychoactive cannabinoid and antiemetic and advises not to code it. The physician specifically wrote "treatment with" in the record. Should it be coded as Other (Code 1) under Other Therapy? |
Do not code as treatment. Enter the information regarding the use of marijuana in a text field. There have been some early clinical trials of cannabinoids in treating cancer in humans and more studies are planned. While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease. At this time, marijuana is used to treat side-effects (such as nausea, vomiting, and pain) and to help increase appetite which helps patients tolerate standard therapies. |
2017 |
|
|
20170040 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for lung cancer case identified pathologically from a metastatic site that differs from the histology stated by the physician? See Discussion. |
Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here? |
Code the histology based on the pathology report from the lymph node biopsy for this case. Pathology has higher priority than a physician's statement for assigning histology code. Use text fields to document the physician's statement. |
2017 |
|
|
20170039 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for final bone marrow diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts? See Discussion. |
This terminology is not specifically included in either alternate names list for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (9989/3) or refractory anemia with excess blasts (9983/3). Example: Bone Marrow Biopsy, Final Diagnosis: Consistent with involvement by myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS EB-2). |
Assign code 9983/3 refractory anemia with excess blasts. Refractory anemia is a type of myelodyplastic syndrome. We will add this to the Heme & Lymphoid database during the next update. |
2017 |
|
|
20180014 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion. |
Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ? |
Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars. |
2018 |
|
|
20180105 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion. |
Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis. |
Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180016 | Primary site--Pancreas: Is the uncinate process of the pancreas coded to C259, C250, or C257? |
Assign C250 to the uncinate process of the pancreas. The uncinate process is part of the head of the pancreas. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion. |
Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade. |
There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior. The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
