Reportability--Breast: Is mammary fibromatosis reportable and if so, what histology code is assigned? See discussion.
The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.
Mammary fibromatosis is not reportable. The WHO classification for breast tumors assigns mammary fibromatosis a behavior code of /1. According to WHO, mammary fibromatosis "is a locally infiltrative lesion without metastatic potential…"
Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms.
You may code grade as follows.
Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)
Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)
First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion.
As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other." Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation.
According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery. For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation).
MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular primary with a combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See discussion.
Patient had a radical orchiectomy with the final diagnosis of "Mixed germ cell tumor with the following features -- histologic type: Mixed germ cell tumor (teratoma 50%, yolk sac tumor 25%, and embryonal 25%)."
Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs.
MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma?
Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0).
First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?
Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section. Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the correct histology code for a NUT midline carcinoma?
Code histology to 8010/3.
NUT carcinoma is identified by the NUTM1 gene rearrangement.
NUT midline carcinomas (NMC) are lethal and morphologically indistinguishable from other poorly diff carcinomas. They are epithelial tumors which can range from undifferentiated carcinomas to carcinomas with prominent squamous differentiation.
A new proposed ICD-O-3 code has been suggested for NUT tumors but it is not yet approved for implementation. Do not use the new code until it is approved for use in the United States.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home