Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041071 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion. | Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)? Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy. First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
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. |
2004 |
|
|
20200021 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology of human papillomavirus (HPV)--associated multiphenotypic carcinoma? See Discussion. |
Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases. |
Assign code 8072/3 for HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 4th edition, lists sinonasal tract HPV-related carcinoma with adenoid cystic-like features as a subtype of non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (NKSCC).Use text fields to record the details. |
2020 |
|
|
20190052 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right nasal cavity (C300) invasive nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8072/3) in 2015 treated with radiation and excision, followed by a 2019 right nasal cavity (C300) invasive squamous cell carcinoma (NOS, 8070/3)? See Discussion. |
Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct? |
Abstract two primaries using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table, in this case, Table 1 Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses. |
2019 |
|
|
20091112 | Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion. | Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?
Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade. Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade. Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade. Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade. |
Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. | 2009 |
|
|
20180074 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: Rule M6 notes a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is a new primary when it follows a diagnosis of a glial or astrocytic tumor. Does this rule apply if the subsequent diagnosis was just, glioblastoma, NOS or one of the subtypes/variants of glioblastoma multiforme? See Discussion. |
Glioblastoma multiforme is listed as a synonym for the preferred term glioblastoma, NOS (9440) per Table 3 Column 2. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS would be a new primary if it followed a glial or astrocytic tumor. However, in general, the Solid Tumor Rules use the preferred terminology and/or indicate when a specific rule also includes any tumor diagnosed as a subtype/variant. Rule M6 does not explicitly include a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS or any of its subtypes/variants (e.g., glioblastoma IDH-mutant or gliosarcoma). Does Rule M6 apply to any diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS and any of its synonyms or subtypes/variants? |
Apply Malignant Central Nervous System Solid Tumor Rule M6 that refers to glioblastoma multiforme and abstract multiple primaries. If glioblastoma, NOS, an associated synonym with the same histology (9440/3), follows a glial or astrocytic tumor, Rule M6 applies. With the identification of new variants of glioblastoma based on genetic profiles, we will likely see fewer diagnosis of GBM. M6 applies to cases where the subsequent/new tumor is specifically stated to be GBM, NOS. |
2018 |
|
|
20180024 | Primary site--Colon: What is the correct topography code for appendiceal orifice? See Discussion. |
From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730) |
Assign C180, Cecum, when the neoplasm originates in the appendiceal orifice. The appendiceal orifice is a landmark in the cecum. During colonoscopy, visualization of the appendiceal orifice indicates that the entire colon was examined, from the anus to the cecum. |
2018 |
|
|
20081039 | Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion. | Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis. Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement. The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation. Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2008 |
|
|
20150050 | Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion. |
Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2). Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2). |
2015 |
|
|
20100046 | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. |
For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated. |
The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.
Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease. |
2010 |
|
|
20051103 | CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion. | For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present. Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression. Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression. |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above. According to our pathologist consultant: Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma. The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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. |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
