Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190034 | Reportability/Histology--Penis: Is a diagnosis of undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) reportable for cases diagnosed in any year? See Discussion. |
Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia. In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ. It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date. |
Report undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) (8077/2). WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, lists basaloid (undifferentiated) penile intraepithelial neoplasia and warty (Bowenoid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a variants of PeIN. |
2019 |
|
|
20200035 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion. |
Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date. There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term. How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection. |
In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by "differental considerations." If that is not possible, given the context and usage, "differential considerations" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI. |
2020 |
|
|
20010096 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Should an invasive malignancy following an in situ malignancy by more than two months be a new primary? Why? See discussion. |
Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Yes. These are two primaries. In situ cancers are not included in SEER incidence rates. Incidence rates must correlate with mortality rates. 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. |
2001 |
|
|
20000535 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: "case staged as C" and "case staged as T3a"? See discussion. | Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?
|
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage. |
2000 |
|
|
20041018 | Grade, Differentiation: Can grade be assigned based on a thin prep if there is no grade in the other pathology reports? See Discussion. | Example:
Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.
Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp. |
When it is the only source specifying the grade, code grade from the thin prep. | 2004 |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
|
|
20240048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: What is histology code of a breast tumor with ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type? See Discussion. |
Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present. Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables. |
Lymphoepithelial carcinoma is a subtype of SCC usually seen in skin or H&N sites and often associated with EBV. CPC SME review determined 8082/3 invalid for breast but did not recommend a substitute code. There were only 45 cases coded 8082 2001 to 2019. For this case, it's possible the lesion originated in the breast skin and progressed to breast tissue. SCC is a subtype of metaplastic breast carcinoma so one could argue it code be coded either 8575 or 8070. For this case, we recommend assigning 8500/3. Use text fields to record the details. |
2024 |
|
|
20000526 | EOD-Extension--Lung: Is bilateral pleural effusion coded as 72 [malignant pleural effusion] or 85 [metastasis]? See discussion. | Example: 10/30/98 CXR: Widespread malignancy, hilar, superior mediastinal masses, bilateral pleural effusions, fullness in soft tissue right neck.
11/01/98 CT chest/ABD: Extensive infiltrate mediastinum by radiolucent tumor mass that engulfs esophagus/trachea. Pleural effusion extends so low it apes ascites. Normal ABS/pelvis.
11/01/98 Pathology: FNA right supraclavicular lymph node: metastic oat cell ca. Sputum cytology reported to be negative. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Extension field to 72 [malignant pleural effusion; pleural effusion, NOS]. | 2000 |
|
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
|
|
20051075 | CS Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when path describes dermal lymphatic invasion of the nipple? See Discussion. | Example Multicentric infiltrating lobular carcinoma of left breast treated with MRM. Microscopic summary: Blood/lymphatic Vessel Invasion: present. Path final diagnosis: Angiolymphatic invasion present, including dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple. Micro: There is angiolymphatic invasion, including dermal capillary invasion identified in sections of the nipple. The path report describes multiple breast tumors, none of which is located adjacent to the nipple. |
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. Assign CS Extension code 20 [Invasion of subcutaneous tissue...] based on the final diagnosis on the path report. There is "dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple." In this case, the stage will be determined by the tumor size. |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
