Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150058 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries. |
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary. |
2015 | |
|
|
20170062 | Race, ethnicity: How do you code race for someone from New Zealand? |
I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian). |
If the only information you have on race is that the person is from New Zealand, code race as white. This is based on the instructions for Australia, the closest neighbor to New Zealand as no other guidance was found. |
2017 |
|
|
20000248 | Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate? | If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case. |
2000 | |
|
|
20071097 | Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a thyroid cancer presenting as multiple foci? See Discussion. | Thyroidectomy showed papillary thyroid carcinoma. Path diagnosis: tumor focality: multifocal. Path described 3 foci of tumor on each side. The main tumor mass in right thyroid was 1.5 cm. Smaller foci of tumor ranged in size from .1 cm to 1.0 cm. Per guidelines, "we still don't count foci as tumors for the purpose of these rules, even if there is more than one." The 1 cm tumor was probably macroscopic in size. Do we count it in the multiplicity counter? Do we count only the 1.5 cm main tumor mass? | If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If foci are measured, include them in the multiplicity counter. If the only information available is "multiple foci" assign code 99. For the case above, code 06 in the multiplicity counter (3 tumors on each side). |
2007 |
|
|
20091081 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. | Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors. | If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.
Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:
|
2009 |
|
|
20200080 | Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: Is a diagnosis of insulin-producing (insulinoma) epithelioid neoplasm reportable if made 2021 and later? If so, is the histology coded as 8151/3 per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table? See Discussion. |
The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table indicate that insulinoma, NOS has changed behavior from /0 to /3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines do not indicate whether this change applies to tumors described as above. Insulinomas are generally neuroendocrine tumors/neoplasms, so it seems any neuroendocrine tumor described as an insulinoma should be collected as 8151/3, but does that apply to an epithelioid tumor/neoplasm also described as insulinoma? This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
If the diagnosis includes insulinoma, it is reportable and coded 8151/3. Insulin-producing epithelioid neoplasm alone, without mention of insulinoma, is not reportable. |
2020 |
|
|
20210040 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis ofmixed mucinous carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features in February 2021, left breast biopsies at 2:00 (3 cm from nipple) and 3:00 (8 cm from nipple) positions. Intraductal component was absent in those specimens. Subsequent left breast total mastectomy in March 2021, provided a final diagnosis of multifocal mixed mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, 27 and 8 mm and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), low to intermediate grade, with focal mucinous features. The Staging Summary lists Histologic Type as mixed mucinous carcinomafor both foci of invasive carcinoma. DCIS is also noted as present negative for extensive intraductal component. There does not appear to be a clear instruction or code for this histology. As a central registry, we are unable to follow-up with the pathologist regarding this diagnosis. Just to be clear, there are 2 foci of invasive mixed mucinous carcinoma in this case measuring 27 mm and 8 mm. The DCIS component measured 56 mm. |
If the DCIS is separate from the mucinous, apply the breast M rules and abstract TWO primaries per M14. Since all we know of the “mixed mucinous” is there is mucinous present, code 8480/3. |
2021 |
|
|
20170063 | Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion. |
Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor? In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk? |
If the "implants" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1. |
2017 |
|
|
20190076 | Primary Site/Brain and CNS: How is primary site coded when the ICD-O-3 provides a sub-site-associated morphology code and the only information available to code primary site for a particular diagnosis indicates a non-specific/not otherwise specified (NOS) site code? See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3 Rule H states to use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not stated in the diagnosis. This topography code should be ignored if the tumor arose in another site. For the following brain and central nervous system (CNS) examples, should the suggested sub-site codes be assigned based on the histology, or should the primary sites be coded as C719 (posterior fossa or suprasellar brain) since the only information available was a tumor in these non-specific sites? Example 1: Resection of a posterior fossa tumor proved medulloblastoma, WNT-activated. Although medulloblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C716, cerebellum), the only information available is that this was a posterior fossa tumor (C719). Example 2: Resection of a suprasellar brain tumor proved pineoblastoma. The pathologist labeled this as a brain tumor, suprasellar. Although pineoblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C753, pineal gland), the only information available is that this was a suprasellar brain tumor (C719). |
If possilbe, ask the physician(s) about the exact site of origin. If it is not possible to obtain more information, the information in the medical documentation takes priority over ICD-O-3 Rule H, even when that results in a less specific topography code. |
2019 |
|
|
20220011 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a "slash" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion. |
For example: -ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term -bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly. |
If possible, try to obtain further information. If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
