Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091127 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion. |
We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries. Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient. Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine. Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain). |
2009 |
|
|
20031055 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion. |
We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation.... Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2003 |
|
|
20031079 | Primary Site: Should we code C80.9 [unknown primary] or code C34.9 [Lung] according to the terminology, "most likely site of origin is lung"? See Description. | We have a case of metastatic keratinizing squamous cell ca. The work-up shows small densities in the lung that may represent inflammatory or chronic changes. No other imaging that shows origin. Physical exam states 2 months of left axillary mass. H/O SCCA of the skin involving chest wall. Path reads: Metastatic w/d keratinizing SCCA. This lesion almost undoubtedly represents mets. The most likely site of origin is lung followed by esophageal primary or head & neck. The final discharge states, "Metastatic SCCA to Left Axilla". |
Code the primary site according to the physicians' opinion, especially the treatment decision. If the physician treats the patient for a lung primary, code primary site as lung. If the primary site cannot be determined, code C80.9. According to the pathologist, the most likely primary site for the example above is lung. The final discharge diagnosis does not reflect the pathologist's opinion, and does not contradict it either. If there is no conflicting medical opinion, code primary site to C34.9 [lung]. |
2003 |
|
|
20150034 | MP/H/Histology/neuroendocrine : How should the following histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation be coded?
1. Bladder - Invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
2. Nasopharnyx - Undifferentiated nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
3. Ductal carcinoma in situ (with neuroendocrine features) cribriform and solid patterns
See discussion. |
We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules? |
The term neuroendocrine is often included with other histologies and usually means that neuroendocrine cells are present but not neuroendocrine tumor.
1. If the neuroendocrine cells are stated to be either small cell or large cell, code that histology; however, neuroendocrine, NOS mixed with urothelial does not have an applicable mixed code. Code histology to 8120.
2. Code histology to squamous cell carcinoma, nonkeratinizing, NOS (8072/3). The neuroendocrine component is not specified as either small cell or large cell.
3. Code to 8523/2 per MP/H Rule H6 as intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma present.
Note that while neuroendocrine differentiation can be identified, it seems to have no prognostic implications. We have consulted with our site specific Subject Matter Experts on how best to capture neuroendocrine, NOS when combined with other histologies. These instructions will be included in the revision of the MP/H rules including the wording of MP/H breast rule H6. |
2015 |
|
|
20170071 | Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion. |
We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings. Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes. Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor." |
The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic. |
2017 |
|
|
20160010 | Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion. |
We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems? |
Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).
|
2016 |
|
|
20160029 | Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion. |
We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct? |
I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions. |
2016 |
|
|
20031194 | Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description. |
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans? Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes? |
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. | 2003 |
|
|
20250031 | SEER Manual/Reportability/Histology: Is severe dysplasia reportable? This is commonly listed as a synonym for high grade dysplasia. Is this term "severe dysplasia" reportable in the sites where high grade dysplasia is reportable? This is listed as a synonym, but it is not clear. See Discussion.
|
We are seeing cases on this in head and neck. The College of American Pathologists Oral Cancer Protocol is showing this as keratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ) and nonkeratinizing dysplasia, severe (carcinoma in situ). SINQ Question 20230047 shows it as reportable for head and neck. |
Report severe dysplasia for selected sites. Not all high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia are reportable. Refer to the list of examples in the SEER Manual Reportability Section and Appendix E, Reportable and Non-reportable Examples. Check also for other standard setters, state, and local reportability requirements. High grade dysplasia, severe dysplasia, and carcinoma in situ are equivalent terms with behavior /2. Refer to ICD-O, WHO Classification of Tumors, and the SEER Solid Tumor Rules for preferred histology terms and codes. For example, WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th edition, states carcinoma in situ in the oral cavity is synonymous with severe dysplasia though it is not a recommended term. |
2025 |
|
|
20210047 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion. |
We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception. Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System 1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive. Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following: Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above. |
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3. Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
