Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081128 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for the following? 4/21/03 Left breast: infiltrating ductal carcinoma, grade 3 micropapillary type. Tumor size: 3.5 cms; deep margin negative. Skin, nipple & areola positive for invasive ductal carcinoma. Dermal lymphatic invasion by carcinoma breast. Extensive intraductal component absent. 6+/6. See Discussion. |
How should histology be coded for a 2003 diagnosis and also for the same diagnosis in 2007 or later? | For a case diagnosed in 2003, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. See Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, revised August 2002, 3rd example on page 5 and page 3, #4.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. Use rule H12. |
2008 |
|
|
20190088 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion. |
Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites. |
For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual: Assign code 1 When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual. |
2019 |
|
|
20200013 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Solid Tumor Rules 2018, Colon Rule M7, bullet 3 indicates that (if neither bullet 1 or 2 apply) a new tumor at the anastomotic site must be stated to arise in the mucosa (confirmed in SINQ 20190096) to qualify as a new primary. However, there is often no clear statement of tumor arising from or involving mucosa (unless the new tumor is limited to the mucosa) noted by pathologists in our region. Do any of the following examples imply a new tumor arising in mucosa per Rule M7, bullet 3? See Discussion. |
Examples: 1) New tumor at the ileocolic anastomosis, described as a, Circumferential centrally ulcerated mass with raised borders. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through muscularis propria into subserosal adipose tissue, no involvement of the serosal surface identified. The only mention of mucosa on the resection is the uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa in the otherwise uninvolved portions of the ileum/colon. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3? 2) Right colon with anastomosis site. Tumor site: Anastomosis. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through the muscularis propria. Gross description does not describe mucosa, only noting, at the central area of anastomosis is an ill-defined, slightly raised, tan-brown to purple mass measuring 2.2 x 2 cm, which is nearly circumferential, causing obstruction at the site of anastomosis. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3? 3) Polyp at ileocolonic anastomosis, polyp biopsy final diagnosis was, Invasive moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in association with adenoma. No mention of mucosa on the biopsy final diagnosis or gross description. Clinical info indicates, There is an ulcerated 5 cm mass at the ileo-colonic anastomosis that was biopsied. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3? |
Following the 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rules M7 and M8: Example 1: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 Bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as the pathology states uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa (no involvement noted). Example 2: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement. Example 3: Assuming the first and second polyps/tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement. Of note in the case of the polyp, tumors coded as adenocarcinoma in a polyp, should be treated as adenocarcinoma (8140) for cases prior to 2018. Also, if the pathologist states the new tumor/polyp originated in the mucosa, it is a new primary. The rules which address "recurrence or new tumor at the anastomosis were created with the input of several gastrointestinal expert pathologists (CAP, AJCC, and WHO). Pathologists should be following CAP reporting guidelines and include information such as mucosal involvement in the final diagnosis and/or synoptic report. We can revisit this question that all polyps start in the mucosa and if needed, revise the rules to state this. |
2020 |
|
|
20150062 | Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2) |
The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder. |
Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
1. Assign grade code 2
2. Assign grade code 4
See the note below the table in instruction #7. |
2015 |
|
|
20150028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is "Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description". The second statement is "Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis"
One of our pathology labs frequently will state "keratinizing squamous cell" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state "squamous cell carcinoma" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis? |
Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis. |
2015 | |
|
|
20000491 | Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing? | Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma. |
2000 | |
|
|
20120019 | Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How are these fields coded for breast cases diagnosed 2011 and later when the patient has a simple mastectomy with removal of seven sentinel lymph nodes? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091076, the correct codes would be 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only] when the patient has any number of sentinel nodes removed, as long as they are designated as sentinel nodes. Under the mastectomy codes in the 2011 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Breast Surgery Codes, the SEER Note states that code 41 [simple mastectomy] includes the removal of one to three axillary lymph nodes. A simple mastectomy with four or more axillary lymph nodes is coded to 51. Does the lymph node count for code 51 include both sentinel and axillary lymph nodes? Or does code 51 refer to strictly the count of axillary lymph nodes, separate from the count of sentinel lymph node(s) biopsied? | First, make sure that the seven lymph nodes removed were actually designated to be sentinel nodes and not a combination of sentinel nodes and other regional nodes. Code sentinel nodes only when the nodes are stated to be sentinel nodes or when the surgical procedure includes the injection of dye to identify sentinel nodes. If all seven nodes removed are sentinel nodes, follow the instructions in SINQ 20091076 and assign codes 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only]. The SEER Note does not pertain to nodes designated as sentinel nodes. |
2012 |
|
|
20010162 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion. | Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy. Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy. |
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001. |
2001 |
|
|
20120091 | Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion. | The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case. | Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.
If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma]. |
2012 |
|
|
20170003 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is epidermoid tumor of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) and trigeminal vesicle nerve reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See discussion. |
Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor. |
Epidermoid tumor of the brain is not reportable. There is no ICD-O-3 code for epidermoid tumor or epidermoid cyst. This type of tumor is often referred to as a cyst because it has a thin wall that secretes a soft material into the center. |
2017 |
An official website of the United States government
