Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. | In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology. Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion. |
N/A | Histology | 2009 |
|
|
20081033 | Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094? | "Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term. Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant." |
N/A | N/A | 2008 | |
|
|
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. |
N/A | Race, ethnicity | 2017 |
|
|
20170081 | Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category." Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. For cases diagnosed 2018+, see the Grade manual https://apps.naaccr.org/ssdi/list/ |
N/A | N/A | 2017 | |
|
|
20180001 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion. |
The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date. The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery. |
Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2018 |
|
|
20180002 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion. |
12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1) 1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1 11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma 5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case. To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf |
N/A | N/A | 2018 |
|
|
20130012 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion. |
The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Urinary MP Rules because site specific rules exist for this primary. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years. When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used. Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8. We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20041093 | Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? | If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. | N/A | N/A | 2004 | |
|
|
20071114 | Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion. | Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer. | Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis. The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report. The instructions are: If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2007 |
|
|
20180039 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Testis: What is the histology code for a 2018 diagnosis of left testis tumor diagnosed as mixed germ cell tumor with secondary malignant components: primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and rhabdomyosarcoma? See Discussion. |
The patient has testicular cancer with bilateral lung metastases and possible liver metastasis. The left orchiectomy final diagnosis was The Summary describes a single tumor that is, Germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) is also present. Although there is mixed germ cell tumor present, the PNET component of the tumor is locally invasive extending into the epididymis, hilar soft tissues, spermatic cord, and tunica vaginalis. The mixed germ cell tumor is limited to the testis only. We are instructed not to use to the term to code histology in the MP/H Rules General Instructions (Other Site Rules not updated for 2018), however the PNET comprises the majority of this tumor and represents the most extensive disease. Should the PNET histology be ignored in this case as its a ? |
Assign code 9084/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a teratoma with a somatic-type malignancy. This code is the best choice even though it does not capture the mixed germ cell elements of the tumor, or the character of the somatic component (rhadomyosarcoma, PNET).There aren't enough histology code numbers to cover all of the possibilities. Use text fields to describe the specifics of this case. |
N/A | Histology | 2018 |
An official website of the United States government
