Reportability--Breast: Is a biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma of the breast nipple reportable if a subsequent areolar resection shows foreign body granulomatous reaction to suture material and no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis?
Yes, this case is reportable. The primary site is C500 [nipple]. There was a diagnosis of malignancy on 2/15/06: "Positive for malignancy." Even though no residual malignancy was found in the later specimen, that does not disprove the malignancy diagnosed on 2/15/06.
Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.
PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated.
The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: On page C-353, in the supraglottic larynx schema, there is no mention of Level IV nodes in the CS Lymph Node codes.
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.The CS Steering Committee is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it.
CS Extension--Lung: Can extension be coded to 10 (Tumor confined to one lung) when either an autopsy or a CT scan describes the tumor as a mass of a specified size located in one lobe of the lung without any description of extension and no available TNM provided? See Discussion.
Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.
Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.
In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.
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.
Yes, assign code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] for a mass in one lobe when none of the descriptions in codes 11 to 80 are documented.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Reportability--Skin: Is a pilomatrix carcinoma of the skin reportable if it is described as being a malignant diagnosis based on poor circumscription, infiltrative growth pattern, and focal abundant mitoses?
No. Pilomatrix carcinoma is not reportable to SEER. Please see page 1 of the 2004 SEER manual. Skin primaries with histology codes from 8090 to 8110 are not reportable. Pilomatrix carcinoma is coded 8110/3.
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6?
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.
Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size.
For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive].
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If there are two ER/PR tests, one positive and one negative, which result should be coded in the SSF fields 1 and 2? See Discussion.
SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast?
Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR +
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 prior to January 1, 2007, according to the CS Steering Committee, record the pathologist's interpretation of the assay value for the most representative tumor specimen. This may require conversation with the pathologist when specimen size is not specified.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.
Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"
A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."
These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.
According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
An official website of the United States government
Home