Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021187 | Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable? |
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order: 1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable. 2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis. 3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable. |
2002 | |
|
|
20061086 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of "Tumoral melanosis" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as "Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion. |
Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma. If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note? |
Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma. |
2006 |
|
|
20170024 | Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion from a pathology report of a colon biopsy reportable?; if so, what is the histology code? |
Tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion is reportable. Assign the histology code and behavior as 8210/3 (Adenocarcinoma in tubular adenoma). NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Implementation discuss the term high grade dysplasia (without invasion). High grade dysplasia and related terms are under review and study for consideration as a reportable neoplasm. Registries should check with their state reporting legislation to see if included in the reporting requirements. |
2017 | |
|
|
20150048 | Reportability--Skin: Is low grade trichoblastic carcinoma, with a small focus of high grade carcinoma of the scalp reportable? See discussion. |
Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize. |
Trichoblastic carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. The WHO classification lists trichoblastic carcinoma as a synonym for basal cell carcinoma, 8090/3. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf. |
2015 |
|
|
20200049 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Lymphoma Orbital Adnexa: What is the correct Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for the site/histology Orbit, NOS (C696), 9699/3? In SEER*RSA, Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor references code 7 (Distant), whereas SS2018 assigns code 2 (Regional)? See Discussion. |
We received an edit error in SEER*DMS on the following site/histology (Orbit, NOS (C696)/9699/3) that involved an incorrect staging code being assigned to SS2018. The staging language is identical in AJCC, EOD and SS2018. SEER*RSA notes that SS2018 should be coded distant, but in the SS2018 manual, this language is noted Regional. Staging language is: Orbital adnexal lymphoma AND extraorbital lymphoma extending beyond the orbit to adjacent structures--Bone, Brain, Maxillofacial sinuses |
To clear this edit of the derived Summary Stage (based on EOD) and the manually assigned Summary Stage (based on Summary Stage 2018), assign the manually assigned Summary Stage to 7. For this particular case, EOD Primary Tumor 700 (which is correct based on the information received) derives Distant; however, for Summary Stage 2018, this description is under Code 2 for Regional by direct extension. This is an error. For 2022, Summary Stage for Lymphoma Ocular Adnexa description under Code 2 (Regional by direct extension) will be moved to Distant. No changes will be done to EOD. |
2020 |
|
|
20140071 | Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.
This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.
So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy. |
This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential. |
2014 | |
|
|
20200045 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Diagnostic Confirmation coded to 5 or 8 based on a patient diagnosed as multiple myeloma by a physician based on a bone marrow biopsy stating plasma cell neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Bone marrow, right iliac crest (aspirate smear, touch preparation, clot section and core biopsy): Hypercellular marrow (40-50%) with plasma cell neoplasm (see Comment): " No evidence of metastatic carcinoma. " Adequate iron storage. Comment: CBC data shows normocytic anemia. Flow cytometric analysis of bone marrow detects a kappa restricted plasma cell population that expresses CD138 and CD38. CD56 is positive. CD19 and CD20 are negative. T lymphocytes are immunophenotypically unremarkable. Polyclonal B lymphocytes are detected. Blast gate is not significantly increased. Immunohistochemical stains are performed on the biopsy core and clot section for greater sensitivity and further architectural assessment with adequate controls. CD138 positive plasma cells comprise > 70% of the total cellularity. AE1/AE3 is negative. Taken together, the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings are consistent with a diagnosis of plasma cell neoplasm. Trilineage hematopoietic activity as are seen. |
This would be a Diagnostic Confirmation of 8 based on the physician's diagnosis. The Pathology report mentions plasma cell neoplasm only. By itself, plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable because it includes a variety of diseases, some that are not reportable, and some that are (See Hematopoietic Database under Plasma Cell Neoplasm.) The physician probably has other information, including imaging, which may show lytic lesions. He/she is probably using clinical findings, plus findings from the bone marrow, and diagnosing this patient with multiple myeloma. |
2020 |
|
|
20150031 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: This is an unusual case of multifocal colon cancer. The case is staged pT4b,N1b. Per our MP rules, this will be 4 separate primaries. Would this be an exception to the rules; if not now, possibly in future versions of the MP rules for colon cancer? See discussion. |
The path report reads: COMMENT: There is multifocal involvement throughout both bowel segments which combined represent a subtotal colectomy procedure. There are at least 11 tumors, all of which are histologically similar. Given the unusual gross appearance, a representative portion of the largest mass (hepatic flexure) was forwarded to _____ for flow cytometric evaluation. There is chronic active colitis in the background suggestive of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis. However, no dysplasia is seen in multiple random sections of grossly benign large bowel. ADDENDUM from expert gastroenterologist: The carcinomas are poorly differentiated without specific histologic features but are consistent with colon primaries. These findings are consistent with an MLH1-deficient carcinoma. Given the background chronic active colitis consistent with ulcerative colitis, this likely represents colitis-associated neoplasia which can be associated with multifocality. |
This unusual case of multifocal colon cancer is not an exception to the MP/H rules currently.
The current WHO classification for colon tumors mentions ulcerative colitis (UC) associated colorectal cancers and states they are often multiple. This will be discussed for the next version of the MP/H rules. |
2015 |
|
|
20200032 | Date of Diagnosis--Brain and CNS: How is the Date of Diagnosis coded when an MRI clinically diagnoses a borderline brain tumor on 4/4/2020, but the subsequent biopsy pathologically diagnoses a malignant brain tumor on 5/20/2020? See Discussion. |
Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date. For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed? |
This tumor was first diagnosed on 4/4/2020 according to the information provided. The pineocytoma was reportable based on a behavior of /1; it was later confirmed as a pineal germinoma; update both the histology and behavior on the abstract as better information was obtained, retaining the original date of diagnosis. |
2020 |
|
|
20110111 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy? |
This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor). In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
