Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061118 | Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant? | Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site. If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site]. According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site. |
2006 | |
|
|
20071132 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable? |
Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable. |
2007 | |
|
|
20180033 | Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) reportable? See Discussion. |
Spindled cell lesion of smooth muscle origin (desmin and SMA are positive, CD34, S100, pancytokeratin, Pax8, MDM2 and CDK4 are negative). Many of the cells have hyperchromatic, bizarre-shaped nuclei. Mitotic activity is inconspicuous. There are no areas of necrosis. The overall findings in this biopsy is best classified as a "STUMP"; however, a leiomyosarcoma cannot be excluded. |
STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) is not reportable. According to the WHO classification of uterine corpus tumors, the behavior code for STUMP is /1. |
2018 |
|
|
20180013 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are tuberous sclerosis cancers found in the brain reportable? See Discussion. |
I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis. |
SEGA (Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma) is reportable if diagnosed in 2004 or later. Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is not a neoplasm and is not reportable. SEGA is a neoplasm that commonly occurs in TSC patients. Refer to the reportability instructions on pages 5-7 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2018 |
|
|
20110129 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology report for a right upper lobectomy with a chest wall resection describes the disease as 1) two foci of poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, 2) mixed adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus? See Discussion. |
This case was abstracted as two primaries, adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] per Rules M5 and M10. If this is reported as only two primaries, what is the stage for each tumor? The non-small cell tumors were the most invasive, but they were not a separate primary per Rule M10. Final pathology diagnosis for a RUL lobectomy and chest wall resection: Carcinoma of the lung with the following features: 1. Non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated (see comment). Two foci in same lobe: 10 cm and 3 cm (largest dimensions of each tumor). Invades pleura (PL3), main bronchus and chest wall invasion present. 2. Adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (see comment). Histologic subtype: Acinar and papillary (adenocarcinoma); non-mucinous (BAC). Two foci in same lobe: up to 1.0 cm. Pleural invasion absent, chest wall invasion absent. 3. Metastatic carcinoma in 5/7 peribronchial LN's. Two histologically distinct neoplasms identified in the lobectomy/chest wall resection specimen: Poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, present as two foci; and adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus. |
SEER will answer the question about the number of primaries to accession. Submit questions about stage to the CoC CAnswer Forum. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Accession two primaries: a mixed adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous [8252/3]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Determine the histology code for each tumor prior to applying the Multiple Primary Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. There are two non-small cell carcinomas, NOS; the histology code for these two tumors will be 8046/3. There is a single adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes tumor, the histology for this tumor will be 8255. There is a single bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous subtype tumor; the histology for this tumor will be 8252/3. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3, because this patient has multiple tumors. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] are multiple primaries. Perform a second pass through the Multiple Primary rules to determine whether the two non-small cell carcinomas [8046/3] are multiple primaries or manifestations of the same primaries identified in Step 3. Start at Rule M3 again because this patient has multiple tumors. Again, these rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's non-small cell carcinomas, NOS [8046/3] are a single primary when compared to the adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. Both of these histologies are more specific types of non-small cell carcinoma per the Lung Histology Groups and Specific Types Chart (Chart 1). You can also apply Rule M10 for both non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. |
2011 |
|
|
20031017 | Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: Does code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions; autopsy only case] or code 1 [ Cancer-directed surgery not recommended] have priority when coding this field for extensive tumors not surgically treated because of existing comorbidities? See discussion. | Example: Patient has Stage IVA carcinoma of the tongue. The physician states that patient is not felt to be a good surgical candidate secondary to multiple medical frailties. Patient is treated with beam radiation. In this case, how do we code Reason for No Site Specific Surgery? Do we use code 2 because surgery was contraindicated due to co-existing medical conditions or do we use code 1 because the tumor is very extensive and surgery would probably not be done anyway? |
SEER has not established a priority for assigning the Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site codes. Assign the code which best describes the reason surgery was not performed. Example: Assign code 2, Contraindicated due to patient risk factors. According to the physician, this is the reason that surgery was not performed. |
2003 |
|
|
20031210 | Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of "other treatment"? See Description. | Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions. | SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain. Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy. |
2003 |
|
|
20020044 | Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion. |
Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex. |
SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland. |
2002 |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20150039 | Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;". |
SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
