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: 12/26/2024 13:15 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021041 First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy--All Sites: How do we code retinoic acid?

The code for retinoic acid depends upon the primary site and histology of the tumor. Code retinoic acid (also called Vitamin A, tretinoin, ATRA, all-transretinoic acid or Vesanoid) in the Immunotherapy field as 01 [Immuno administered as first course therapy] for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This drug is given to patients as an alternative to chemotherapy.

For all other sites/histologies, code retinoic acid in the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field. Use code 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy] or 3 [Double-blind clinical trial, code not yet broken] if the drug is given as part of a protocol. If the drug is not being given as part of a protocol or you don't know whether it is part of a protocol, use code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].

 2002
20210021

EOD 2018/Lymph Nodes-EOD--Breast: Should Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes be coded as 150 (Clinical assessment only; Positive needle core biopsy/fine needle aspirate [FNA]) when the patient has a biopsy-proven, clinically apparent, movable ipsilateral axillary lymph node, but no evidence of involvement at surgery after neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion.

The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?

The clinical assessment code takes priority over the pathological assessment code in this case because the clinical assessment was worse than the pathologic assessment. Although there was a pathological assessment, the clinical assessment is greater. According to the general coding guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy, code the worst information, which in this case is the clinical assessment.

The 2018 EOD General Instructions for EOD Regionals Nodes, instruction #4, addresses neoadjuvant therapy as follows. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the most extensive lymph node involvement documented.

A new note is being included for the 2022 updates. Exception: If patient has neoadjuvant therapy, and the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment, the clinical assessment code takes priority.

 2021
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001
20100002 Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?

The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.

Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.

 2010
20071060

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?

The case is not reportable.

The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.

 2007
20140034

Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion.

SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.

The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?

The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.

Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix.

2014
20200061

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion.

12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2.

Histology 8130

01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin.

07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.

Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used?

The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3.

Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma.

 2020
20071086 Histology--Pancreas: How is a "gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm" coded that has lymph node metastasis?

The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].

Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.

 2007
20081005

Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for an "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture"? See Discussion.

Scenario: Addendum from Mayo Clinic review, IHC and consultation made dx of "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture". The original micro states 'high grade glial neoplasm w/o characteristic features of glioblastoma multiforme in that it lacks areas of significant necrosis, no nuclear palisading nor endothelial vascular proliferation...."

The best code available according to our pathologist consultant is 9505/3 [Ganglioglioma, anaplastic]. According to our consultant, while ganglioglioma is traditionally a benign tumor, anaplastic ganglioglioma is classified as malignant by WHO (page 103), and comes as close to fitting the description of this tumor as any other term.

 2008