Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term "accession" rather than "abstract"?
The purpose of the new data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion.
Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.
Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?
Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.
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.
Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.
The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.
Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, page 47, states to determine whether the physician is using the term myelodysplasia to describe bone marrow marrow malfunction or a neoplasic syndrome in order to determine reportability. What do we do when there is no information one way or the other?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Without further information, the term "myelodysplasia" alone is not reportable. If a more definitive diagnosis is made later, the case may become reportable.
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.
CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.
Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.
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.Code CS Tumor Size as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.
Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.
CS Eval/Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: When the only procedure performed is a polypectomy, if there is NO tumor at the margins, should CS TS/EXT-Eval be coded as 3 and the surgery coded as a polypectomy?
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 eval code 3. A polypectomy with no tumor at the margin meets the criteria for pathologic staging.
Code polypectomy in Surgery of Primary site in this case.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion.
MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded when the final pathology diagnosis is "adenocarcinoma with extensive mucinous features" and the percent of mucinous features is not stated?
Code 8140 using rule H6. Rule H6 applies because the percent of mucinous is not specified.
CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How do you code the CS Tumor size and SSF6 fields for a breast cancer described as "Paget disease with underlying intraductal carcinoma (4cm x 3.2cm)"?
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.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
An official website of the United States government
Home