Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160076 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)? |
The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160066 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type of "invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma" for a single breast tumor? See Discussion. |
The patient had a partial mastectomy with final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma. Knowing that metaplastic breast carcinoma has a worse prognosis than other types of breast cancer, is metaplastic stroma a synonym for metaplastic carcinoma when used in this context? |
Code to metaplastic carcinoma, 8575/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The term 'metaplastic stroma' implies that at least a portion of the carcinoma has undergone a 'metaplastic' change from epithelial in appearance to 'stromal' in appearance. I assume this is what CAP means by 'Invasive mammary carcinoma with matrix production,' which the WHO equates to metaplastic carcinoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20160001 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information? |
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information. |
2016 |
|
|
20160052 | Summary Stage 2000--Lymphoma: How is SEER SS2000 coded for an ocular adnexal lymphoma when it extends from the primary site to adjacent sites that are still orbital structures? See Discussion. |
In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one "adjacent" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?
The issue is what constitutes "adjacent" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, "According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II." Does SEER agree with this definition of "adjacent" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid "adjacent" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit? |
Assign SEER SS2000 code 5 (Regional, NOS) for a lymphoma of orbit extending to lacrimal gland. In SEER SS2000, this is Stage IIE: Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues. |
2016 |
|
|
20160040 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a final diagnosis of "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" (NIFTP) reportable when the diagnosis comment states this tumor was historically classified as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis. |
As of January 1, 2021 Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) C739 is no longer reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward. See the ICD-O-3.2 material on the NAACCR website,https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/#1582820761121-27c484fc-46a7 _____________________________________________ Answer for cases diagnosed 1-1-2017 to 12/31/2020 Report NIFTP and assign ICD-O-3 morphology code 8343/2. See the NAACCR document, page 3, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/What-You-Need-to-Know-for-2017.pdf |
2016 |
|
|
20160075 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies? |
Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20160010 | Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion. |
We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems? |
Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).
|
2016 |
|
|
20160057 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants? |
Assign 8523/3.
The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160016 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume). |
Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having "extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3). |
2016 | |
|
|
20160068 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion. |
It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable. |
This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System. Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
