Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20130182 | Primary site--Head and Neck: How is primary site coded if a floor of mouth biopsy reveals microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma but the definitive resection of the tongue and floor of mouth unifocal lesion reveals only in situ squamous cell cancer? See Discussion. | Patient with overlapping lesion of tongue and floor of mouth. Initial biopsy of floor of mouth reveals microinvasive squamous cell cancer. Definitive resection reveals in situ squamous cell cancer. Pathology report states unifocal tumor. The tumor site on pathology report is documented as involving the tongue and floor of mouth.
Should the primary site be coded to floor of mouth because it is the site of invasive disease? Or is primary site C148 [overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx] because invasion should not be used to determine primary site? |
Code the primary site to C068 [overlapping lesion of other and unspecified parts of the mouth]. Based on the information provided, this is a tumor described as a "book-leaf" lesion a lesion that overlaps the floor of the mouth and the underside of the tongue. | 2013 |
|
|
20130206 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What rule applies to code a primary site for a peripheral blood diagnosis of marginal zone lymphoma that has a positive flow cytometry/FISH analysis when no biopsies are performed, scans show no evidence of disease, exam indicates no lymph nodes are palpable and the physician's clinical diagnosis "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1"? See Discussion. | PE: No palpable lymph nodes.
PET scan: No spleen or lymph node uptake; no uptake anywhere in the body.
Peripheral blood and flow cytometry/FISH analysis diagnosis: Marginal zone lymphoma.
No bone marrow or biopsy of any lymph nodes done. Doctor states "marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1." |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown primary]. According to Rule PH27 one is to code the primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.
If further workup is done and a primary site is determined, update the primary site for this case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2013 |
|
|
20010006 | Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion. | PE: Prostate firm on DRE IMP: Rule out prostate cancer |
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent. |
2001 |
|
|
20200003 | Histology--Penis: What is the histology code of a glans penis primary with the final diagnosis squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type? See Discussion. |
Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054. Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous. |
Code squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type of the penis as verrucous carcinoma (8051/3). In WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, tumors of the penis, verrucous carcinoma is described as an extremely differentiated keratinizing papillomatous and acanthotic neoplasm; it accounts for 2-3% of penile squamous cell carcinomas. The coding of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma changed from 8051/3 to 8054/3 in 2018 for penile sites only in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18. Override the edit until the edit issue is explored. |
2020 |
|
|
20120085 | Reportability--Ovary: Are mature teratomas of the ovary reportable? See Discussion. |
Per a NAACCR Webinar from February 2011 (Testis), "All adult (post-puberty) pure mature teratoma tumors are malignant and should be coded 9080/3.' Does this apply to ovarian cases? The medical record entries all seem to indicate this a benign process. Should this NAACCR Webinar info be applied specifically to testicular cases? Would this be a reportable case if the primary site were testis? The patient also has a history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid. SINQ 20100052 indicates a thyroid primary may present in an ovarian teratoma. Would this be reportable, or must there be mention of the histology other than, or in addition to, the mature teratoma? |
Mature teratomas in the ovary are benign [9080/0]. For testis, mature teratoma in an adult is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). With regard to the thyroid issue, from the information above, the medullary carcinoma in the patient's thyroid is clearly a separate event. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "thyroid tissue is one of the many tissue types that may be seen in teratomas. When the teratoma has exclusively or predominantly thyroid tissue the term struma ovarii is used Adenoma or carcinoma of the thyroid type may be seen in this thyroid tissue. If medullary carcinoma were present in the thyroid tissue in the ovary/teratoma, there would be mention of it in the path report." |
2012 |
|
|
20140001 | Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion. | Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field. Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search? |
Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.
Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors. |
2014 |
|
|
20110155 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion | Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.
Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.
Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.
On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.
An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].
The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.
The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."
According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 |
|
|
20200057 | Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion. |
Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32. |
Answer updated August 2025 Assign code 8044/3. WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, classifies SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm as Thoracic SMARCA4-deficient undifferentiated tumor (SMARCA4-UT). |
2020 |
|
|
20110013 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion. |
Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.
Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used? |
As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes. |
2011 |
|
|
20051086 | CS Site Specific Factor 4--Prostate: For apex involvement at prostatectomy, is only apical involvement found at prostatectomy included or is all histologically proven apical involvement documented in the second digit of Site Specific Factor 4? See Discussion. | Per note 1 for Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension all histologic information is used. Biopsy information would be included when coding path extension. Would all histologic information be used for coding prostatectomy apex involvement in Site Specific Factor 4? Example 1: Prostate biopsies of the right and left apex and right and left mid gland show adenocarcinoma. Prostatectomy shows bilateral adenocarcinoma. Apex negative for tumor. Example 2: Prostate biopsies of right apex and mid gland show adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of apex on prostatectomy path. How is CS Site Specific Factor 4 Prostate Apex Involvement coded? |
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 the second digit of CS SSF 4 based on prostatectomy only, do not include biopsy or other histologic information in the second digit. According to the CS Steering Committee, the clinical or biopsy of the prostate is included in the first number of the code and should not be combined with the prostatectomy code which is the second number. These were separated purposely. Example 1: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 1 [no involvement of prostatic apex]. Example 2: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 5 [apex extension unknown]. |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
