System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/31/2024 14:10 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130203 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1) and MRI evidence of dozens of cavernous angiomas/malformations throughout the supra and infratentorium? See Discussion.

9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).

9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.

9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations.

This case is not reportable as is. The clinical diagnosis on the 9/13/13 MRI was "cerebral cavernous angiomas," but the final impression on the MRI was a re-demonstration of the numerous scattered foci consistent with cavernous malformations seen on the previous 9/9/11 MRI. There was no reportable statement of cavernous angioma. Cavernous malformation is not a reportable neoplasm; it has no valid ICD-O-3 code.

Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS. When they arise in blood vessels or bone, they are not reportable. Do not report vascular tumors when there is not enough information to determine whether they arise in the dura or parenchyma or elsewhere.

2013
20140040

Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.

We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of "epidermis" or "dermis" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?

This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case "is specifically saying "epidermis" and "dermis" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable."

2014
20230023

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries—Brain and CNS:  How many primaries are accessioned, and which M Rule applies, to a 2018 of pituitary adenoma (8272/0) that was partially resected followed by a 2023 resection of residual disease proving pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (8727/3)? See Discussion.

The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?

This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future.  PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5.

This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria.

 2023
20160061

Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.

 

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.

2016
20061105 CS Extension--Bladder: Can the physician TNM be viewed as a clarifying statement when it provides information not documented elsewhere in medical record as in the example of a pathology report for bladder primary that demonstrates extension into bladder muscle, NOS but the physician documented TNM notes a more definitive T code for depth of muscle invasion? See Discussion.

In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:

"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Yes, you may code CS extension using the physician assigned "T" when it provides information not found elsewhere in the medical record.

 2006
20051037 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score be taken from a TNM form in the record? If so, what score would we code for "low" (0-1 points) and "high" (4-5 points)?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Yes, the IPI score from the TNM form can be used to code SSF 3. Without further information, code "low" as 000 [0 points]. Code "high" as 004 [4 points].

 2005
20020051 CS Extension (Clinical)/SSF 3 (Pathologic Extension)--Prostate: Upon prostatectomy, the case was determined to be localized. There is no clinical assessment of the tumor prior to prostatectomy. Should clinical extension be coded to 99 [Unknown]? Please see discussion below. See discussion. We have a prostate case that is clinically inapparent. There is no staging info at all, no biopsy done. Then the patient has a prostatectomy with a single 0.4cm focus of Adenoca gr 3+3.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Yes, code CS Extension (clinical) as 99 [unknown]. The extension based on the prostatectomy is coded in Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension.

 2002
20091046 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Melanoma: When CS Lymph Nodes is coded 13, 14 or 15 (codes used when satellite nodule(s) or in-transit metastases are present), why must CS SSF 3 be coded 000 (No lymph node metastasis)? See Discussion.

3/11/05 Consult - PE: huge exophytic lesion right lower leg (mushroom-type lesion), 6cm. Below that lesion is another ulcerative lesion 2cm. Right upper arm lesion w/ satellite nodule. Note from physician states malignant melanoma on right lower leg metastatic to the left arm/shoulder. No scans done so there is no assessment of the lymph nodes.

We coded CS LNS to 13, which captures the satellite nodule, CS SSF3 = 999 and CS Reg Nodes Eval = 0. SEER Edit 216 requires the SSF3 to be 000. SSF 3 is coded 999 as there is no information about the clinical status of lymph nodes.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.When CS lymph nodes is coded 13-15, SSF 3 must be coded 000. Follow the instruction in the SSF 3 Note: Use code 000, No lymph node metastases, if ... there are satellite nodules or in-transit metastases, but no regional lymph node metastases, i.e., CS Lymph Nodes is coded 13-15.

For this case, assign CS lymph node code 15 [Satellite nodule(s) or in-transit metastases greater than 2cm from primary tumor WITHOUT regional lymph node involvement or involvement of regional nodes not stated]. The arm lesion is more than 2cm from the leg lesion.

 2009
20081103 CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: What code should be used for the the following? There is no mention of LNS clinically; the patient has neoadjuvant therapy; and the LNS are matted pathologically.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Use the information from the pathologic evaluation to code CS Lymph nodes.

In the nodes evaluation field, assign code 6 [Regional lymph nodes removed for examination with pre-surgical systemic treatment or radiation and lymph node evaluation based on pathologic evidence]. See CS Lymph Nodes note 4.

 2008
20051112 Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion. On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.

The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines.

 2005