Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100014 | Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?
1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa. 2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive. 3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface. 4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue. 5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking. 6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied. 7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given. 8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum). 9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk". 10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria". 11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST. 12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface. 13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria. 14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential." 15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+. 16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy." |
For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. | 2010 |
|
|
20120020 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion. |
Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma. Are these microscopic foci of DCIS a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting. |
The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma". If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2]. For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries. Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2. Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3. Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries. If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma. Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. |
2012 |
|
|
20170063 | Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion. |
Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor? In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk? |
If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1. |
2017 |
|
|
20170002 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are cavernous sinus meningiomas reportable? See Discussion.
|
Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.
Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a "true dural venous sinus" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels. |
Cavernous sinus meningiomas are reportable, as the meningioma arises in the meninges unless stated otherwise. This is similar to sphenoid wing meningiomas. |
2017 |
|
|
20230004 | SEER Manual/Laterality--Kaposi Sarcoma: If both arms are involved with Kaposi sarcoma and no other sites, how is laterality coded? See Discussion. |
Per Solid Tumor Manual Other Sites Rule M6, despite the number of areas of involvement, any presentation of Kaposi sarcoma is always a single primary. The primary site is skin using the Kaposi Sarcoma for All Sites Coding Guidelines (Appendix C, 2023 SEER Manual). Does SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Laterality Coding Instruction #4 preclude the use of code 4 [Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis...] if a patient presents with KS involvement of only both arms or only both sides of the face? |
Assign Laterality code 4 (Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary) in the situations you describe. Skin of upper limb and shoulder and Skin of other and unspecific parts of the face are listed as paired organs in the table Sites for Which Laterality Must Be Recorded In the 2023 SEER Manual. |
2023 |
|
|
20061093 | Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion. | Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS. Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers. Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case. |
Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false. | 2006 |
|
|
20200034 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for 2020 breast lumpectomy final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? Summary Cancer Data and CAP Summary states: Invasive carcinoma with the following features: Histologic type: Tubular adenocarcinoma. See Discussion. |
Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual. |
In this case, the pathologist states two different histologies. Per the H rules, when there are different histologies, code the histology which comprises the majority of tumor. Use H16 and code histology stated to be more than 50% of tumor OR H17, code 8523 when percentage is not stated or unknown. |
2020 |
|
|
20110121 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Will the AJCC TNM 7 having separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma result in coding histology for a tumor of mixed squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma because it has the poorer prognosis? See Discussion. | Per the CS Esophageal Schema, Note 4, there are now separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Should a tumor of mixed histopathologic type be classified as a squamous cell carcinoma?
|
Do NOT use the Collaborative Stage Manual to determine the histology code. For CS STAGING purposes only, coding should be based on the squamous cell carcinoma component of this tumor.
The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an esophagus primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because esophagus does not have site specific rules.
Start at Rule H8 because this is an invasive histology (assuming this is a single tumor). which states that one should code the appropriate combination/mixed code from Table 2 when there are multiple specific histologies.
Find Other Sites for Table 2 under the Terms & Definitions section of manual.
Locate the appropriate mixed code for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in column 1. Per column 3, the correct histology is adenosquamous carcinoma. Per column 4, the correct histology is 8560/3. |
2011 |
|
|
20091024 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007. Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later. For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary. |
2009 |
|
|
20110143 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion. |
Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides. This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides. 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 |
An official website of the United States government
