Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180066 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How is laterality coded for bilateral non-malignant central nervous system (CNS) or malignant CNS tumors now that laterality is no longer used to identify these tumors as multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied? Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign? |
Determine whether the CNS tumors are single or multiple primaries. Multiple cerebral meningiomas are a single primary according to the non-malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Assign laterality using the 2018 SEER Manual for select invasive, benign, and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors using codes 1-9 for all sites listed in the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table. In the example, assign code 4, bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary. The solid tumor rules are not a one-stop-shop for all coding. Refer to the appropriate coding manual for laterality. We removed laterality for determining multiple primaries in meningiomas as they were being over-reported according to CBTRUS. |
2018 |
|
|
20091118 | Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: How are the surgery fields to be coded when patient undergoes hysterectomy and omentectomy for endometrial primary? See Discussion. | The example for instruction 6 in the 2007 SEER manual on page 179 (for surgery of primary site) states "code an en bloc removal when the patient has a hysterectomy and an omentectomy." There is no Site-Specific Surgery code for corpus uteri that combines hysterectomy with omentectomy. Is the information about removal of the omentum lost or is it documented under Surgical Procedure of Other Site? |
Use the most appropriate code in the "Surgery of Primary Site field." Do not code the omentectomy in "Surgical Procedure of Other Site" when it is performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. | 2009 |
|
|
20190077 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Thymus: How should SEER Summary Stage 2018 be coded for a 2018 thymus primary which has mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement? See Discussion. |
The Extent of Disease (EOD) manual states that "Confined to thymus WITH mediastinal or pleural involvement" should be coded as regional by direct extension. I have EOD primary tumor coded as 200 and based on SEER*RSA, this is localized. |
Code 200 derives Regional Extension (RE) for Summary Stage; however, based on the information you provided, thymus primary with mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement, EOD Primary Tumor would be coded to 100: Confined to thymus (encapsulated tumor), which includes extension into the mediastinal fat; No mediastinal or pleura involvement. This derives "Localized" for Summary Stage. Per AJCC T1, extension into the mediastinal fat is separate from involvement of the mediastinal pleura. For Summary Stage 2018, this would be code 1, Localized only (localized, NOS): Confined to thymus, NOS; No mediastinal or pleura involvement or UNKNOWN if involved. We will note that "extension into the mediastinal fat" is included in code 100 for the next release (September 2020). |
2019 |
|
|
20190027 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor/Neoadjuvant treatment: If there is no clinical information available and all that is available is the post-neoadjuvant information, is it better to code EOD unknown (999) or use the post-neoadjuvant information to code EOD? See Discussion. |
The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information. |
Code EOD Primary Tumor using the post neoadjuvant information for this case. Since the only information you have is the post neoadjuvant, code that. EOD combines clinical and pathological information. |
2019 |
|
|
20230032 | Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive reportable? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma. Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment? |
Your case is equivalent to encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-invasive (non-invasive EFVPTC) and is not reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021 or later even though it says "carcinoma." That is because the WHO assigned a behavior code of /1 to this entity (8349/1). NIFTP is assigned to the same histology and behavior code. |
2023 |
|
|
20110012 | Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."
Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor? |
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis. | 2011 |
|
|
20120082 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient has two tumors in the left breast, one that is ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation and the other is ductal carcinoma, NOS? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci. Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm). Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm). The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation [8523/3] and ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different that the third (xxx) digit and are, therefore, multiple primaries. Ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation is not a specific type of ductal carcinoma identified in either Table 1 or 2. (To locate Tables 1 and 2, go to Breast under the Terms & Definitions section of the manual.) It is ductal carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma (mucinous carcinoma in this case) see Table 3. Rule M11 does not apply. |
2012 |
|
|
20230059 | Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis stated as MDS/AML (myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia) per the international consensus classification (ICC)? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy was high grade myeloid stem cell neoplasm, 17% blasts by differential count. The pathologist further states that this could be classified as “MDS with increased blasts (MDS-IB2) per the WHO 5th edition classification, or MDS/AML per the international consensus classification (ICC).” FISH and cytogenetics revealed a loss of 7q, but no other AML-related genetic abnormalities. The physician confirms the patient has MDS/AML. |
Updated Answer July 2024 Code histology as myelodysplastic neoplasm with increased blasts (9983/3) based on the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition, Beta version 2. WHO lists MDS with increased blasts-2 (MDS-IB2) as a subtype of 9983/3. Terms coded to 9983/3 include
When differences exist between WHO and ICC, assign the histology based on the WHO Classification. |
2023 |
|
|
20100056 | Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a case with pathologic diagnosis of "anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative" involving the brain and a clinical statement of involvement in the right inguinal lymph nodes and the right lower extremity by a cutaneous lymphoma? See Discussion. |
The final diagnosis on the pathology report for a brain biopsy is "Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative." Per a progress note: right inguinal lymphadenopathy. CT scan is consistent with multiple lymph node groups enlarged. Right lower extremity cutaneous nodular lesion; cutaneous lesions likely cutaneous lymphoma.
Should the histology be coded 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative], and the primary site C447 [skin of leg]? Or is the physician using "cutaneous lymphoma" as a general term indicating infiltration and the primary site is really C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code to primary site to C447 [skin of leg]) per Rule PH25 and histology to 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative]. Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, these are the usual presentations for this disease. It also states this disease presents with peripheral node involvement and is often generalized with infiltrates in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and extranodal tissue. Less frequently involved sites are lung, salivary gland and CNS.
Per PH25, code the primary site to the organ when the lymphoma is present in an organ (skin, right leg) and that organ's regional lymph nodes (inguinal). Distant lymph nodes or other organs may also be involved, but should be disregarded for coding primary site.
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. |
2010 |
|
|
20100067 | MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion. | The final diagnosis on the pathology report, "Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.
I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed? |
This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma). | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
