Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion.
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor.
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3.
CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion.
The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states "when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040." The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?
Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.
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/Breast: Is lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) reportable? The eighth edition, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual does not stage LCIS.
Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf
MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma?
Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0).
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.
Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.
Surgery of Primary Site/Multiple primaries--Breast: Should the Surgery of Primary Site for the 2020 diagnosis be coded 51 (Modified radical mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast) when a partial mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection are performed for a 2011 right breast primary and a subsequent 2020 right breast primary is treated with a total mastectomy only? See Discussion.
The patient underwent a partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy, followed by an axillary lymph node dissection for the first right breast primary in 2011. The separate 2020 right breast primary was treated with a total mastectomy and removal of one involved axillary lymph node. The operative report only refers to this as a non-sentinel lymph node, with no mention of other axillary findings.
Cumulatively, this patient has undergone a modified radical mastectomy since there were likely no remaining axillary lymph nodes. If the Surgery of Primary Site data item is cumulative, does the order of surgeries matter?
It is unclear whether this question should be directed to SINQ (for coding in a SEER registry) or to CAnswer Forum because both have addressed similar surgery related questions in the past and and there is no guidance regarding this specific situation.
Yes, assign surgery of primary site code 51 for the 2020 diagnosis in this case. Code the cumulative effect of all surgeries to the primary site. This means that for the 2020 primary, code the cumulative effect of the surgery done in 2011 plus the surgery performed in 2020. Use text fields on both abstracts to record the details.
Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block?
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.
An official website of the United States government
Home