Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081029 | Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: Multiple cavernous hemangiomas diagnosed in 1995 are treated with radiation and steroids in 1996. A 1999 MRI states there is no interval change with the lesions in selected location since 1995. How many new primaries should be reported if a 2006 MRI states there are additional cavernous hemangiomas in other parts of the brain? See Discussion. | 7-03-97 PE: Past history significant for cavernous hemangiomas. Has had radiation and was on high-dose steroids in early 1996. Patient reports subsequent MRI done and neurologist gave "clean bill of health." 1-26-99 MRI BRAIN. Clinical information: history of intracranial cavernous hemangiomas. Comparison with prior brain MRI in 12/15/95. IMP: Upper medullary, right parieto-occipital, left frontal cavernous hemangiomas without interval change in size as compared to 12/15/95.
1-25-06 MRI BRAIN. Clinical info: history of prior radiation for cavernous angiomas. Comparison made with prior exam on 1/26/99. Impression: Multiple, variable sized cavernous angiomas within medulla, pontomedullary junction, midbrain, & cerebral hemispheres. Dominant lesion centered within posterior pontomedullary junction. FINDINGS: 8mm lesion in posterior pontomedullary junction. 2mm lesion within right paracentral portion of medulla. Several less than 5mm lesions noted within brain stem bilateral. Two, less than 1-2mm, areas within right inferior aspect of right and left cerebellar hemispheres. 1cm lesion centered within white matter within right posterior parietal/occipital region. Several small, less than 1-2mm, lesion within surrounding white matter. 3rd dominant lesion within left frontal lobe equal 6mm. Several 1-2mm foci of susceptibility artifact within subcortical white matter of high right and left cerebral hemispheres consistent with small cavernous angiomas. |
Benign and borderline brain and CNS tumors diagnosed January 1, 2004 and later are reportable. Multiple tumors in different brain and CNS sites are separate primaries. Different sites are those with ICD-O-3 topography codes that differ at the first, second, third or fourth character. There are four reportable primaries in the scenario described above. |
2008 |
|
|
20220001 | Solid Tumor Rules (2022)/Histology--Bladder: Can the term configuration be used to code the more specific histology for bladder primaries diagnosed 2022 and later? See Discussion. |
In the September 2021 Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules update, the term configuration was removed from the “DO NOT CODE histology when described as” list. However, it was not added as a term that can be used to code the more specific histology for urinary tumors. Can configuration be used to code the more specific histology 8130 (papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma, tumor configuration: papillary? |
Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2022, the term "configuration" can be used to code histology for urinary sites only. At the request of the AJCC urinary experts, the instructions were changed to allow configuration to be used to code histology. |
2022 |
|
|
20061022 | Reportability: Are glomus jugulare tumors reportable? |
Begining with cases diagnosed 2021, glomus jugulare tumor, NOS is reportable. It is listed in ICD-O-3.2 with a behavior code of /3. |
2006 | |
|
|
20120059 | Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. | In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500. | Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.
If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5]. |
2012 |
|
|
20031081 | Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field? | Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. |
2003 | |
|
|
20150020 | Reportability/Primary site--Skin: Is a basal cell carcinoma of the lip "ever" reportable and if so, what would need to be documented or seen? See discussion. |
There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text. Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090. On review, a few did have a mention of the word "upper lip/mucosa" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through. SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions? It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual. Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for "absence of any additional information" and lists "Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip" as code C000. |
BCC of lip C00_ is rare and requires a statement that the tumor is on the vermilion border (rather than skin) to be coded C00_ and to be reported. Our expert pathologist consultant refers to an article in the Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50(3): 384-387. |
2015 |
|
|
20190016 | Update to current manual/SS2018--Breast: Should Code 3 of the Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for Breast designate the intramammary and infraclavicular lymph nodes as being ipsilateral? Similarly, should Code 7 designate infraclavicular lymph nodes as contralateral/bilateral? Laterality (ipsilateral, contralateral/bilateral) is included for axillary and internal mammary nodes in the respective codes. |
Based on your question, a review of the AJCC manual was done to clarify how these nodes would be coded. A review of Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes and EOD Mets was also done. That information is correct and in line with AJCC 8th edition. We apologize that SS2018 was not updated accordingly and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Per AJCC, infraclavicular and intramammary nodes are ipsilateral for the N category. Contralateral or bilateral involvement are included in the M category. The following will be applied to the planned 2020 update of the SS2018 manual. Code 3 Ipsilateral will be added to Infraclavicular and Intramammary Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (ipsilateral) Intramammary (ipsilateral) Code 7 The following will be added under Distant lymph nodes Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (contralateral or bilateral) Intramammary (contralateral or bilateral) |
2019 | |
|
|
20190038 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded and which H Rule applies for a single tumor with final diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinoma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) synoptic report states, Histologic type: Invasive cribriform carcinoma with no mention of a tumor percentage? See Discussion. |
In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B). There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority? |
Based on the synoptic report findings, code cribriform carcinoma using Breast Solid Tumor Rule H12 which says to code the histology when only one histology is present. The histologic type describes one histology and does not describe the components of an NOS/NST with a subtype, in which case a different rule would apply. The priority order for using documentation to identify histology gives equal weight to final diagnosis and synoptic report, secondary to addendum or comments. Use the more specific histology if either the final diagnosis or synoptic provides the additional information on the histology. |
2019 |
|
|
20170054 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a 2011 diagnosis of oligodendroglioma followed by biopsy of tumor which demonstrated progression in 2016 with pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma? See Discussion. |
The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)? |
Based on the information provided, this is a single primary. The 2011 tumor was not completely removed and progressed over the years. MP/H Rule M3 for malignant brain cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. |
2017 |
|
|
20130176 | Reportability--Ovary: Is an adult granulosa cell tumor of the right adnexa reportable if the left adnexa, diaphragm and paratubal tissue are reported to be consistent with metastasis? See discussion. |
Per the pathology report: Right adnexa: adult granulosa cell tumor. Left adnexa: Foci of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in paratubal tissue. Diaphragm smears: consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. Comment: The morphology and immunoprofile of the cellular aggregates in the paratubal soft tissue are consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. |
Based on the information provided, this case of adult granulosa cell tumor is malignant and reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "though granulosa cell tumor NOS/ adult NOS is 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal implants or metastases, and/or lymph node metastases indicates the tumor is malignant, and it should be coded /3."
Note that the presence of implants or metastases does not indicate malignancy in the case of low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Our path expert explains "in contrast, by convention the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, and is /1, even though there may be peritoneal implants/metastases, or metastatic disease in lymph nodes. The treatment may vary in these circumstances, but to my knowledge the decision as to the tumor designation remains based on the primary tumor." |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
