Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091122 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries-Brain: Does a glioblastoma multiforme following a low grade glioma (oligodendroglioma) represent a new primary? See Discussion. | In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, glioblastoma multiforme following oligodendroglioma are multiple primaries according to rule M8. Rule M6 does not apply. M6 applies only to glial tumors as listed in chart 1. Chart 1 is based on the WHO classification. The WHO classification separates oligodendroglial tumors from glial tumors. | 2009 |
|
|
20091105 | Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion. |
2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries. MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.) 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. |
2009 |
|
|
20091007 | CS Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius? | 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. Assign CS extension code 20 [Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS (EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11) Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].
A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091084 | Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. | The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules. | Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate. The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her. The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69. |
2009 |
|
|
20091002 | Multiplicity Counter--Ovary: Given the diffuse nature of ovarian cancer, should we count bilateral parenchymal involvment of ovaries as two tumors? See Discussion. |
Are peritoneal implants mets and not counted as separate tumors, even though they're not stated to be metastatic in the path report, and are not coded as distant mets? |
Code Multiplicity Counter to 02 [Two tumors present] for an epithelial ovarian primary involving both ovaries. Do not count the peritoneal implants; they are regional metastasis and not included in the multiplicity counter. An example like this will be added to the manual in the next revision. |
2009 |
|
|
20091009 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. | Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. | 2009 |
|
|
20091081 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. | Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors. | If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.
Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:
|
2009 |
|
|
20091076 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done? | Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091059 | CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. | Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field? | 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.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i). |
2009 |
|
|
20091025 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis. For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case. |
2009 |
An official website of the United States government
