Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20240050 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: Why is there no M Rule in the Other Sites Multiple Primary Rules related to extramammary Paget disease of the vulva? See Discussion. |
The only Other Sites H Rule related to extramammary Paget disease is included in the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary module. Rule H28 instructs one to code the histology of the underlying tumor when there is extramammary Paget disease and an underlying tumor of the anus, perianal region, or vulva. Therefore, a vulvar extramammary Paget disease with underlying adenocarcinoma is coded as adenocarcinoma (8140/3), and not extramammary Paget disease (8542/3). However, there is no M Rule confirming extramammary Paget disease and the underlying adenocarcinoma are a single primary (i.e., multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary) making it difficult for one to use the Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary H rules module. We recognize this is a longstanding histology coding rule, but how are registrars supposed to arrive at Rule H28 when the M Rules must be applied first and do not instruct one to accession a single primary? Moreover, if this is to be a single primary (per rule M2), why is there no H Rule in the Single Tumor module? |
In sites other than breast (see Breast Solid Tumor Rules M8/M9), Paget disease with underlying invasive disease is a single primary and the underlying histology is coded. Primary Paget disease of the vulva is uncommon, and we cannot create rules for all possible situations in the Other Sites module. A GYN specific module is in development, and we will look into adding a Paget-related rule. It will differ because Paget in breast is a different situation while Paget in the vulva is always adenocarcinoma. Paget disease of the vulva is an in-situ adenocarcinoma of vulvar skin with or without an underlying adenocarcinoma (WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.). When there is a statement of “underlying” adenocarcinoma, it is a single primary as with Breast Solid Tumor Rule M8. |
2024 |
|
|
20170010 | CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: What estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) values should be coded in a case with two separate tumors (1 ductal, 1 lobular) diagnosed simultaneously in the same breast (single primary) with differing ER/PR values for each tumor? One is ER/PR positive; the other is ER/PR negative. |
In cases where ER (or PR) is reported on more than one tumor specimen, record the highest value. If any sample is positive, record as positive. Guidance on Collaborative Stage (CS) site-specific factors (SSFs) in the breast schema can be found in the SEER Registrar Staging Assistant (SEER*RSA): SSF1-Estrogen Receptor (ER) Assay and SSF2-Progesterone Receptor (PR) Assay. The SEER* RSA breast schema is found at: https://staging.seer.cancer.gov/cs/schema/02.05.50/breast/?breadcrumbs=(~schema_list~) |
2017 | |
|
|
20200035 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion. |
Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date. There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term. How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection. |
In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by "differental considerations." If that is not possible, given the context and usage, "differential considerations" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI. |
2020 |
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
|
|
20031199 | CS Extension/Polyp--Colon: How is CS extension coded for tumor invasion described as "Haggitt level 4"? See Description. | Polypectomy specimen revealed adenocarcinoma of the rectum in a tubulovillous adenoma. Per path extent of invasion was Haggitt level 4. The micro description of the tumor stated that there was malignant epithelial neoplasm in colonic mucosa. | In a 1985 Gastroenterology journal article, Haggitt described five levels of polyp invasion: Level 0-confined to mucosa Level 1-head Level 2-Neck Level 3-Stalk Level 4-Submucosa of underlying colonic wall.
For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward: Use the best information available to code CS extension. The following conversion may be used when the only information available is the Haggitt level. Level 0 - Extension 10 Level 1 - Extension 13 Level 2 - Extension 15 Level 3 - Extension 14 Level 4 - Extension 16 |
2003 |
|
|
20240062 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an MRI finding of “statistically meningioma” reportable? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only. Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context? |
If you cannot clarify this with the involved physicians, do not report this case of meningioma based on information provided. There is no indication that the patient was treated or further evaluated for meningioma. |
2024 |
|
|
20210035 | Update to current manual/Lymphovacular invasion--Thyroid: Are psammoma bodies only recorded as vascular invasion in papillary thyroid cancer cases? See Discussion. |
For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only). |
If you are collecting lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for thyroid cases, record "vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only)" as vascular invasion (code 1, Lymphovascular Invasion Present/Identified) in the LVI data item. Use a text field to specify that this is vascular invasion by psammoma bodies. |
2021 |
|
|
20150059 | Primary Site--Liver: What is the topography code for combined hepatocellular carcinoma/cholangiocarcinoma (M-8180/3) especially when there is no documentation that intrahepatic bile duct is the tumor site? Reports usually just indicate a liver mass(es) but since the intrahepatic ducts are within the liver, is the code C221 due to the cholangiocarcinoma component, thus making the case stageable? |
If there is no further information about where the cancer originated, assign C220. Use ICD-O-3 as the source for coding topography. The topography code associated with combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (8180/3) is C220 when there is no other information available, according to ICD-O-3. |
2015 | |
|
|
20190022 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Is histology code or the number of primaries assigned differently in SINQ 20180093 if the word "pattern' was omitted? See Discussion. |
Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary. My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor. |
If the word "pattern' was omitted, you would abstract multiple primaries per the Lung Solid Tumor Rule M6 and code histology to adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant (8551/3) and adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (8250/3) per Rule H4 as the word "pattern' is not included in each histology. |
2019 |
|
|
20041026 | CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion. | The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm. | If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.
Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size. |
2004 |
An official website of the United States government
