Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should the histology "non-invasive papillary carcinoma" along with the comment "solid intraductal papillary proliferation includes cytologically atypical cells with scattered mitotic figures" be coded to 8503/2 [intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8050/2 [papillary carcinoma in situ]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The best histology code for this breast case is 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors for Breast, Papillary carcinoma, non-invasive is a synonym for Intraductal papillary carcinoma. Further, code a more specific histologic type when found in the microscopic description, according to the SEER Program Code manual.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Primary site--Lung: What primary site code is used for bronchus intermedius?
Assign code C340 [main bronchus].
The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main bronchus on the right side. The bronchus intermedius begins just below the point where the upper lobe bronchus branches off from the main bronchus. The bronchus intermedius branches into the middle lobe bronchus and the lower lobe bronchus.
Histology--Breast: Please confirm the morphology code for a diagnosis of "encapsulated papillary carcinoma" of the breast. Several articles on the internet lead me to believe it is the same as an intracystic carcinoma, code 8504/2 (our case shows no evidence of invasion).
You are correct in coding 8504/2 for this case. Per the 4th Edition WHO Tumors of the Breast, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast is synonymous with intracystic or encysted papillary carcinoma. It is a variant of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?
Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.
Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: How is a "carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, and signet ring cell features" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SEER Manual applies to this case.
Rule 7: Code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. This is the rule with the lowest priority and should be used infrequently.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?
These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: If a patient presents with two separate lesions on the left cheek (i.e., left lateral cheek and left upper cheek) that both are histologically confirmed to be superficial spreading melanoma on the same day, is this coded as one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.
The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.
Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"?
This case is not reportable.
The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home