Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)? |
Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this. |
2014 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
|
|
20140051 | Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm. |
Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, "Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs..." |
2014 | |
|
|
20140001 | Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion. | Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field. Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search? |
Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.
Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors. |
2014 |
|
|
20140088 | Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant. |
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
|
2014 | |
|
|
20140011 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion. | A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct? | Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified. | 2014 |
|
|
20140066 | First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor? |
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140005 | Primary site--Testis: In the absence of a specific statement that the patient's testicle(s) are descended, should the primary site for a testicular tumor be coded as C621 (Descended Testis) when the mass is palpable on physical exam or demonstrated on scrotal ultrasound? See discussion. | It seems the non-specific Testis, NOS (C629) code is being over used. Many testis cases have no documentation of the patient's testicular descention. However, testicular tumors in adults are frequently detected by palpation or scrotal ultrasound. An undescended testis (a testis absent from the normal scrotal position) would be non-palpable or not amenable to imaging via a scrotal ultrasound. | Unless the testicle is stated to be undescended, it is reasonable to code C621 for primary site. Reserve C629 for cases with minimal or conflicting information. | 2014 |
|
|
20140078 | Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion. |
Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure. |
Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen. |
2014 |
|
|
20140049 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Tuberculum sellae meningioma reportable? Is it same as sphenoidale meningioma? Path: Brain tuberculum tumor resection: Meningioma, WHO grade I. |
Revised answer based on ST rules Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
