Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150011 | Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion. |
There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.
1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction? 2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction? 3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction? |
Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.
1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction 2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction 3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction |
2015 |
|
|
20230074 | Extent of Disease/EOD Regional Nodes--Small Intestine: For an ileal/jejunal neuroendocrine primary, how should mesenteric soft tissue deposits (less than 2 cm) be collected in Extent of Disease (EOD) Staging? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient is diagnosed with grade 1 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the ileum, confirmed on ileocolic resection in 2023. The final diagnosis is a 2.8 cm ileal mass, with focal lymph-vascular invasion and a single 0.6 cm tumor deposit within mesenteric fat; primary tumor completely resected with widely negative margins and 10 regional nodes negative for malignancy. According to AJCC, mesenteric masses less than 2 cm should be stated in the pathology report as being present and collected by registrars but do not affect stage. EOD Regional Nodes has a code for large mesenteric masses greater than 2 cm only. How should we record these smaller tumor deposits if they are not supposed to affect stage? |
Do not code 500 for involvement of the mesentery unless the mesentery is specifically stated to be involved (and we don't have that information). We need more information on this case to assign EOD primary tumor. EOD Regional Nodes would be 000 per AJCC. |
2023 |
|
|
20180056 | Primary Site--Ovary: How should primary site be coded for a previously diagnosed ovarian cancer which is now being reclassified as fallopian tube? See Discussion. |
There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries? |
Do not change the primary site in this situation. Since the review was done for a clinical trial and the change was not officially made in the patient's medical record, the primary site remains ovary for the cancer registry. Add an explanatory note in a text field for future reference. |
2018 |
|
|
20140084 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma. |
Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable. |
2014 | |
|
|
20190032 | Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion. |
Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded. Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung. Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant. No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options. Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0. |
Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer. To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20061070 | Chemotherapy: If a physician does not document the reason chemotherapy was given concurrently with radiation therapy, should it be assumed to have been used as a radiosensitizer or radioprotectant and then, per SEER chemotherapy coding instruction 2, ignore coding the chemo agent as treatment? | Do not assume that a chemo agent given with radiation therapy is a radiosensitizer. Seek additional information. Compare the dose given to the dose normally given for treatment. When chemotherapeutic agents are used as radiosensitizers or radioprotectants, they are given at a much lower dose. |
2006 | |
|
|
20041078 | Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion. |
12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy. |
Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case. Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology. |
2004 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20180092 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable? If yes, what is the correct histology code? |
Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable. For cases diagnosed in 2018, assign 9385/3. |
2018 | |
|
|
20140088 | Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant. |
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
|
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
