Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071050 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case. Example: Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp]. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071022 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion. | Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype. Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology? Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2007 |
|
|
20071088 | Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion. | The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed. Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules? |
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive. | 2007 |
|
|
20071056 | Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion. | Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12. Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer... |
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen. |
2007 |
|
|
20071099 | MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of "pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components"? Please see discussion. |
Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: "While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma." This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma. "Components" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5. |
2007 |
|
|
20071073 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion. | A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features. The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]. After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523. This advanced concept of a "second pass" through the rules is discussed in an online web training session called "Beyond the basics." Go to the SEER website to view this session http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_advanced.html |
2007 |
|
|
20071079 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of "recurrent ductal carcinoma" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion. | The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998 Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins Refused radiation Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen
Present: June 2007 Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca. Left axillary nodes (+) |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries. The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis. |
2007 |
|
|
20071117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for a single brain tumor described as a low grade astrocytoma at the time of the initial partial resection and a low grade glioneuronal neoplasm at the time of the subsequent total resection? See Discussion. | On 4/20/07 a partial resection of a brain tumor is interpreted as low grade astrocytoma. Patient has a gross total resection on 8/13/07 with this diagnosis: low grade glioneuronal neoplasm (see comment). Comment: This case has been reviewed at ---. Dr. agrees with our interpretation (low grade glioneuronal neoplasm, possibly a dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor). | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary. A single tumor is always a single primary. Assign histology code 9400/3 [Astrocytoma, low grade]. This diagnosis was not revised or amended based on the later surgery. It is possible that the malignant component was entirely removed during the first surgery. |
2007 |
|
|
20071059 | CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Given that the CS Manual instruction is to code the highest PSA value recorded in the medical record, can a PSA value obtained a year prior to admission be used to code the SSF 1 and SSF2 fields? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. The PSA recorded in CS SSF 1 and 2 must be documented in the medical record. Record the highest PSA value prior to diagnostic biopsy or treatment. If the highest PSA value documented in the medical record is from the previous year, record it. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071015 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes? | This question was answered by the CoC:
Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
