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: 11/05/2024 03:17 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061137

Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?

Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.

An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.

 2006
20081047 Reason no surgery of primary site/First course treatment: If the Reason no Surgery of Primary Site field is coded as 7 (refused), must the other treatment options (radiation, chemo, hormone) also be coded as 7? See Discussion. Coding instruction #5 in the SEER manual states: "Assign code 7 (refused) if the patient refused recommended surgery or made a blanket statement that he/she refused all treatment."

Refused [code 7] means this modality was specifically recommended by the physician and the patient refused. If two treatment alternatives were offered and surgery was refused, code Reason no surgery of primary site 1 [Surgery of the primary site was not performed because it was not part of the planned first-course treatment].

Refusal of surgery does not necessarily mean that all treatment was refused. Coding Surgery of Primary Site as "refused" does not affect the coding of Radiation, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, etc.

 2008
20081013

First course treatment--Prostate: If a patient has a prostatectomy and the margins are positive, then several months later radiation is given because the PSA levels never decreased or have risen, is the radiation coded as first course of treatment or subsequent treatment?

Record the radiation as first course of treatment even though it was delayed for several months.

Radiation is highly effective when there is a small or microscopic amount of tissue left at the margin following prostatectomy. In most regions, radiation therapy is the standard of care for positive margins at prostatectomy.

 2008
20110088

Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion.

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon?

Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery. 

 2011
20160042

First course treatment/Date 1st surgical procedure--Colon: Should the date of a polypectomy be recorded in the Date of First Surgical Procedure field when the entire tumor is not removed by polypectomy? See Discussion.

The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the "single piece polypectomy" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy?

Record the date of the polypectomy as the date of first surgical procedure. Polypectomies are surgery for the purposes of cancer registry data collection regardless of whether or not there is residual tumor after the polypectomy.

2016
20150040

Surgery of Primary Site--Pleura: How is this field coded if the patient underwent an exploratory thoracotomy with partial decortication that excised some, but not all, of the pleural mesothelioma tumors? See Discussion.

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

Read the operative report and the pathology report and assign the surgery code that best represents the extent of the surgery. In this case, code 30 seems most appropriate. Do not assign the surgery code based only on the name of the procedure; use all information available to chose the most representative code.

2015
20160035

Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable?

Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004.

2016
20150049

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable?

Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor.

2015
20220008

Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue:  Is atypical spindle cell neoplasm, primitive myxoid mesenchymal tumor of infancy (PMMTI) from the soft tissue of the leg in August of 2019, reportable? 

Primitive myxoid mesenchymal tumor of infancy (PMMTI) is reportable. PMMTI is listed in the new WHO 5th edition Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors under round cell sarcomas. This is a variant of BCOR sarcomas. There is a new ICD-O histology code assigned for cases diagnosed in 2022 or later (9368/3). Code this 2019 case to round cell sarcoma, undifferentiated 8803/3. Use text fields to explain the details.

 2022
20230077

EOD 2018/ Primary Site/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--CLL/SLL: How are Primary Site and Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded when a lymph node biopsy proved chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and the peripheral blood is involved with an “abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population”? See Discussion.

The patient has adenopathy in multiple lymph node regions above and below the diaphragm and a lymph node biopsy pathology proved CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Further work-up with peripheral blood proved an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population comprising only a small percentage of the white blood cells (WBCs). The pathologist noted this neoplastic B-cell population comprises “3.5% of white blood cells and has an immunophenotype characteristic of CLL/SLL and is similar to the recent lymph node biopsy in this patient.” The managing physician indicated this was a Lugano Stage III SLL. The registrar coded the peripheral blood involvement in EOD Primary Tumor.

If this small percentage of WBCs with an abnormal B-cell population is included in EOD Primary Tumor as peripheral blood involvement, then this would indicate peripheral blood/bone marrow involvement and primary site would need to be coded to C421 per Rule PH5. Rules PH5 and PH6 confirm primary site must be coded C421 if peripheral blood or bone marrow are involved.

Is there a cutoff value for these abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood? Or should these abnormal B-cell populations be ignored unless the pathologist states the abnormal B-cell population is consistent with CLL/SLL (not just immunophenotypically characteristic of CLL/SLL)?

Primary site would be C421 based on Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual, Module 3, Rule PH 5.

Assign EOD Primary Tumor to code 800 (peripheral blood involvement WITH other involvement). 

Per consultation with an expert hematologist oncologist, this is a Stage IV CLL/SLL since the peripheral blood is involved. There is no cutoff value for the abnormal B-cell populations in the peripheral blood when the cells are consistent with CLL/SLL. If the peripheral blood is involved, even only slightly, it is a Stage IV CLL/SLL. Our expert stated that the physician's staging was wrong (this is not a Lugano, Stage III).

 2023