Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031057 | Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: How is this field coded for a five grade system? See Description. | Example: Invasive, high grade transitional cell carcinoma (Grade 4-5/5) | For this example, code grade as 4 based on the term "High grade." If "high grade" was not stated, the grade would be coded as 9, not determined. There is no SEER translation between the ICD-O grades and a five grade system for bladder. None of the pathololgist experts we querried knew of a five grade system for bladder. | Bladder | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20200033 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primary tumors should be abstracted for a 2018 breast excision with a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0.7 cm) with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present as discontinuous foci, spanning 12 cm? See Discussion. |
If the term discontinuous foci means separate tumors, then rule M14 would apply making these multiple reportable tumors. |
Abstract two primaries, invasive mucinous and DCIS, using 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast, M14, as the discontinuous foci are separate tumors in this example and the histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the rules. |
Breast | N/A | 2020 |
|
|
20010117 | Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]? | For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3. For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123. |
Prostate | N/A | 2001 | |
|
|
20180088 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion. |
The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site. Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries? |
The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3. For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue). This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites. |
Prostate | N/A | 2018 |
|
|
20031018 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Uvula): Is a stage T2 tumor described on the physical exam as an "ulcerated mass occupying uvula midline soft palate, and extending into the right soft palate. It does not extend into the tonsil area nor into the retromolar trigone" coded to 30 [localized, NOS] or 40 [tumor crosses midline]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. This is mucosal spread (since there is no muscle in the uvula). Soft palate and uvula are handled as a single site, and extension from uvula to soft palate is not addressed in EOD. |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2003 | |
|
|
20071100 | Type of Multiple Tumors--Colon: How is this field coded for a case in which the patient is found to have two in situ polyps and an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp all in the same segment of the colon? See Discussion. | Code 30 would not count the fact that these are polyps. Code 31 states "AND a frank adenocarcinoma." What would be the correct code? | Assign code 30 [In situ and invasive] in this case. Code 31 does not apply here because frank adenocarcinoma is not present. | Colon | N/A | 2007 |
|
|
20210014 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a 4/2019 diagnosis of left upper lobe (LUL) adenosquamous carcinoma (left lingula mass biopsy: adenosquamous carcinoma; LUL lung biopsy: pulmonary adenocarcinoma, stated to be a collision tumor and single primary per the Tumor Board), treated with radiation followed by an enlarging LUL mass in 7/2020 found to be squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary. 5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate 10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring. 06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor. 07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic. |
Abstract two primaries: 8560 and 8140 using rule M6. One of the original tumors with adenosquamous now shows only residual SCC following XRT. PD-L-1 is not used to determine multiple primaries. Assuming three tumors (the post-XRT SCC is not a new tumor but residual from one of the adenosquamous tumors) there are two primaries: 8560 and 8140 per M6. For collision tumors, each histology identified in the tumor is used to determine multiple primaries. |
Lung | N/A | 2021 |
|
|
20130072 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when the right lower lobe lung has two adenocarcinomas, both with lepidic pattern, if the tumor board staged these tumors as separate primaries? See Discussion. |
Per pathology report
The tumor board has staged this as two separate primaries and is treating it as such. They are not considering the second focus metastatic even though it is the same histology. Lepidic is not in the ICD-O-3. Is lepidic a new term for histology? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the right lower lobe lung. The steps used to arrive at this decision are: Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Lung MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary. Step 2: Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule M12. Accession a single primary when the patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology. Keep in mind that physicians follow different "rules" to determine the number of primaries. Even though the physicians consider this case to represent two primaries, the MP/H rules instruct you to accession one primary. We have received quite a few questions about the term lepidic. Below is the general definition of lepidic that will be added to the next MP/H revision. "Lepidic" is a growth pattern meaning that tumor cells are growing along the alveolar septa. It is characteristic of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), but not diagnostic of it. The diagnosis of BAC also requires no stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. Lepidic growth may be seen in other adenocarcinomas, including metastases to lung from other sites. It is not a type/subtype of adenocarcinoma. For lepidic lung neoplasms, code the histology indicated, for example BAC. |
Lung | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20220047 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a patient with 2020 neck mass, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), p16-negative, who then had a biopsy of the right tonsil (C09.9) in July 2022, SCC p16-positive, one or two primaries? Is this coded to 8070/3 using pre-2022 rules or a new, second primary p16-positive, 8085/3. See Discussion. |
History provided by the oncologist Right neck mass since 2019; 04/07/20, initial biopsy p16-negative SCC, delay of treatment due to patient preference, agreed to biopsy of tonsil and work-up August 2022; right tonsil biopsy: p16-positive, G2 SCC, nodal mass at that time >6 cm with extensive extranodal extension, Stage III (cT2, cN3, cM0, p16-positive); based on this history, was staged as a tonsil primary and p16-positive. Patient details 1. March 2020, CT neck and chest revealed a 0.5 x 2.7 x 2.3 cm low-density necrotic nodal mass at right neck level 2 suspicious for metastatic disease. There was a slight asymmetric increased size of the right palatine tonsil. There are a few sub-4 mm pulmonary nodules which are nonspecific. 2. April 7, 2020, FNA of right neck mass with pathology revealed p16-negative SCC 3. April 20, 2020, PET/CT revealed 3 x 2 cm right-sided level 2 node with FDG avidity 4. May 5, 2020, flexible laryngoscopy showed no obvious primary lesion 5. May 2020, after evaluation by a medical oncology, patient declined any treatment 6. June 17, 2022, return visit in medical oncology after PET/CT demonstrates significant progression in the neck; patient definitively declines chemo, but would like surgical opinion. Now has more rapidly progressive disease with skin breakdown and weeping from malignant lesion right neck. 7. June 22, 2022, radiation oncology consultation 8. July 15, 2022, tonsil biopsy: Invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated with LVI, p16-positive 9. Patient now agreeing to treatment with radiation: Tooth extractions 8/30/2022, radiation planning 9/14/2022 10. Patient consulted with cancer specialist who explained surgery is not recommended given level of extranodal extension and risk of seventh cranial nerve paralysis and fistula formation with surgical excision and who recommended chemoradiation 11. September 9, 2022, patient presented for radiation CT simulation/treatment planning and informs treatment team. Patient declined/refuses concurrent chemotherapy despite recommendations from two cancer institutions. |
Abstract a single primary of the tonsil. The diagnosis date is March 2020 (the date of the CT scan). Assign 8070/3 for the histology. Metastases were found in 2020 before the primary of tonsil was determined in 2022. The oncologist information confirms this. |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2022 |
|
|
20100049 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a lymph node biopsy reveals "malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and follicular T-cell lymphoma," the bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement, and the oncologist states this patient has "peripheral T-cell lymphoma"? See Discussion. |
CT scan showed retroperitoneal and inguinal adenopathy. Right inguinal lymph node biopsy revealed "malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma and follicular t-cell lymphoma." Flow cytometry studies showed no evidence of B-cell lymphoma and atypical CD3+/CD10+/CD7-/CD4+/CD56+ T cells are detected (19%). The bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement. Patient was staged as Stage II Peripheral T-Cell lymphoma by the oncologist and started chemotherapy. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the oncologist's clinical diagnosis of peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
The definition for this neoplasm is "A large group of lymphomas which we collectively refer to as peripheral T-cell lymphomas with the optional addition of "unspecified" to emphasize that these cases do not belong to any better defined entities. Attempts to distinguish between them on morphological basis have met with poor reproducibility."
Per the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB: Patients present with peripheral LN involvement. The diagnosis of PTCL, NOS is made ONLY when other specific entities have been explored.
This fits your case; attempts to find a more specific disease (flow cytometry; BM biopsy) were negative and gave no further information that could be used to assign a more specific classification.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
