Histology--Pancreas: What is the correct code for "non-secretory pancreatic endocrine tumor" with positive lymph nodes on excision indicating a malignant tumor? Pathologist indicated it was not an exocrine tumor.
Code as islet cell carcinoma [8150/3].
There are several cell types in the islets, and each produces a different hormone. The custom has been to name the tumors by their hormone production e.g. insulinoma, glucagonoma, etc. Occasional tumors do not produce any hormone (at least one that can be determined or measured). These tumors are called non-functioning endocrine tumors. Most of the endocrine tumors in the pancreas are islet cell tumors.
MP/H Rules--Corpus uteri: How is histology coded for an endometrial tumor described as an "endometrioid adenocarcinoma with prominent squamous metaplasia"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is coded 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. This falls under the Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites, rule H17. The code for Endometroid adenocarcinoma is 8380. The code for Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is 8570. The histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code is Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia -- 8570.
MPH rules--Rectum: How is the number of primaries to be determined when a treatment plan has been completed, but it is not possible to determine whether there was a disease-free interval between occurrences? See Discussion.
Patient diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the rectum in March 2006, underwent chemo and radiation therapy as treatment. Patient seen in April 2007 for surveillance colonoscopy. HPI stated patient underwent chemorad with good results. Colonoscopy showed "persistent" disease. Abdominal perineal resection was done in May 2007. Path showed adenocarcinoma of the rectum.
Keeping in mind that we are not to use a clinical statement for determining recurrences, is the April 2007 occurrence counted as a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not abstract the 2007 events as a new primary. "Persistent disease" indicates there was never a disease free interval.
Primary site/Histology: Does SEER accept the site/type combination of lymph nodes (C77.0-C77.9) with the histology of either 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) or 9827 (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)? See Discussion.
There is a discrepancy between the SEER Site/Type table and the CS histology codes under Lymph Nodes.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not "impossible" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.
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.
Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?
Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.
Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.
The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.
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.
Race, Ethnicity/Spanish Surname or Origin: Which Spanish Surname List (from 1980 census or 1990 census) would SEER prefer us to use to code 7 in Spanish Surname or Origin? See Discussion.
In the SEER coding manual, it refers to "a list of Hispanic/Spanish names" (5e), but does not specify which one to use. Again, for the Computed Ethnicity field, which Spanish Surname List does SEER prefer us to use?
Determine which list is better suited for your geographic area. If the 1990 list is used, determine the probability cut-off that seems most reasonable for your geographic area.
Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?
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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.
The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.
Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?
"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."
An official website of the United States government
Home