Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120016 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "amyloidosis" reportable if the medical oncologist states that it is a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Amyloidosis is not reportable per the Commission on Cancer guidelines. However, the medical oncologist at this facility states that it is a malignancy. The oncologist presented a case at Cancer Conference and indicated the patient has Stage III disease. Should this case be accessioned? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Amyloidosis, NOS is not reportable. It is listed in Appendix F of the Heme Manual on the Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases. Amyloidosis (AL) is term that refers to a group of conditions that include benign conditions (e.g., found in the pancreas of type II diabetes patients and in the brain lesions of Alzheimer patients) as well as in malignant diseases (e.g., AL found in multiple myeloma and ACal (calcitonin) found in medullary carcinoma of the thyroid). Amyliodosis, NOS is not a term that equates to a malignant diagnosis. Check the medical record to see if this disease process is designated as either AL or ACal. There should be a malignant diagnosis such as multiple myeloma or medullary carcinoma of the thyroid in such cases rather than simply a diagnosis of amyloidosis. The malignancy needs to be coded, not the symptoms of the disease process. 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. |
2012 |
|
|
20210051 | Primary site/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the correct primary site code for intra-ampullary and periampullary adenocarcinoma, C241 (8144/3) or C249? See Discussion. |
Ampulla, biopsy: High grade dysplasia with focal intramucosal carcinoma in a background of ulceration with acute and chronic inflammation. Surgery pathology: Head of pancreas, duodenum, and distal stomach, pancreaticoduodenectomy-Ampulla, Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Grade moderately differentiated, 1.5cm. Tumor invades into duodenal submucosa. Lymphovascular Invasion: Foci suspicious for lymphovascular invasion identified. Perineural Invasion: Present. Synoptic report: Tumor Site Intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Histologic Type Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type. There is not enough information regarding site in radiology reports or operative report. CT-A/P/C:The patient's known ampullary mass is not well visualized on this exam. No significant intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary ductal dilation is identified. The pancreatic duct is normal caliber. |
Assign C241. Ampulla (C241) includes both periampullary and intra-ampullary. |
2021 |
|
|
20081015 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion. |
After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
|
|
20190104 | Histology--Corpus uteri: Is 8020/3 used for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion. |
After a little research, it appears as though Endometrial Dedifferentiated carcinoma is a relatively new term and is set to be included in ICD-O-3.2: http://www.iacr.com.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=100&Itemid=577 If you look at the link on that page for All Additions, Changes, and Revisions to the ICD-O-3, 1st Revision for ICDO-3.2, there is 8020/3 Dedifferentiated carcinoma. Currently, 8020/3 is Carcinoma, undifferentiated, NOS. For 2018 diagnosis, would you use 8020/3 for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma as stated in the pathology: Uterus, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes; supracervical hysterectomy/BSO: Predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma in the endometrium, FIGO grade 1 Portion of omentum, omental/anterior abdominal wall/ round ligament/uterine/small bowel mesenteric tumor nodules all involved by dedifferentiated carcinoma. Synoptic reads as follows: Histological Type: Endometrioid carcinoma, NOS Dedifferentiated carcinoma predominantly Histological Grade: Endometrioid carcinoma, FIGO grade 1. |
Assign code 8380/3 for endometrioid carcinoma, NOS as this is listed as the histological type in the synoptic report. |
2019 |
|
|
20170055 | First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Do you code total hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy when a specimen indicates the uterus, cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and right and left parametrium were resected, but shows no portion of the vagina. See Discussion. |
AFS1-AFS2-frozen section control, endomyometrium; AFS3-frozen section control, subserosal intramural mass; A4-anterior cervix; A5-posterior cervix; A6-anterior cervical endometrial junction; A7-posterior cervical endometrial junction; A8-A10-anterior endomyometrium, including tumor; A11-A13-posterior endomyometrium, including tumor and adjacent mass; A14-random section subserosal mass; A15-left parametrium at margin of resection; A16-right parametrium at margin of resection; A17-A18-left ovary and fallopian tube; A19-A20-right ovary and fallopian tube. The final diagnosis includes Endometrial adenocarcinoma, favor serous carcinoma, with papillary and solid areas. Tumor involves: Cervix present, Right ovary, Left ovary, Right fallopian tube, Left fallopian tube, Right parametrium, Left parametrium. |
Assign code 50 for total hysterectomy. According to Appendix C Surgery Codes for Corpus Uteri of the 2016 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, total hysterectomy is surgery to remove the entire uterus, including the cervix; whereas, radical hysterectomy includes the vagina. |
2017 |
|
|
20230064 | Primary Site--Cervix Uteri: When no other information is available regarding the origin of the tumor, can an overlapping cervical adenocarcinoma (C538, 8140/3) be coded to the endocervix (C530) based on the histology? See Discussion. |
Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538? Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology. |
Code Primary Site as Overlapping lesion of cervix uteri (C538). The 2023 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Primary Site Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors #4 says to code the last digit of the primary site code to ‘8’ when a single tumor overlaps an adjacent subsite(s) of an organ and the point of origin cannot be determined. This is also supported by the ICD-O-3, 3rd edition, note in the Topography section that states: In categories C00 to C809, neoplasms should be assigned to the subcategory that includes the point of origin of the tumor. A tumor that overlaps the boundaries of two or more subcategories and whose point of origin cannot be determined should be classified to subcategory ‘8.” |
2023 |
|
|
20240079 | Reportability/Histology--Conjunctiva: Is low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL) with focal high-grade features of the conjunctiva (C690) reportable? If reportable, what histology should be assigned? |
Additional comments in this pathology report state "The entire case was sent in consultation to an ophthalmic pathologist. [Pathologist] assigns a conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) score of 2-3 due to the upward pagetoid migration of small, dendritic melanocytes. A C-MIN score of 2-3 is between low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL; C-MIN 2) and high-grade conjunctival intraepithelial lesion (HG-CMIL; C-MIN 3). The older terminology for this lesion would be primary acquired melanosis (PAM) with mild to focally moderate atypia." This term does not appear in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM), Appendix E1 of the SPCSM, or Solid Tumor Rules (specifically rule H3) . |
Conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial neoplasia (C-MIN) is reportable; therefore, low-grade conjunctival melanocytic intraepithelial lesion (LG-CMIL) with focal high-grade features of the conjunctiva (C690) is reportable, 8720/2. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual. |
2024 |
|
|
20010094 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion. |
ACR website: Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant. Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer. |
Updated Answer Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf |
2001 |
|
|
20220049 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many cases should be abstracted for a patient with 2022 wedge biopsy of right upper lobe acinar predominant lung adenocarcinoma and wedge biopsy of right lower lobe lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma if there is concern for diffuse spread throughout the lungs secondary to the lymphangitic carcinomatosis and possible diffuse pneumonic type of adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. |
Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis. Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).” Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies. It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions. |
Abstract two separate primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of Table 3 using Rule M6 in the Solid Tumor Rules (September 2021 Update). They represent two subtypes/variants of the same NOS histology. When coding histology, tissue from pathology takes precedence over imaging, including when stated as differential diagnoses based on the CT scan, as noted by the pathologist in this example. |
2022 |
|
|
20180106 | First Course Treatment--Other Therapy: Please explain how to code this new therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for rare neuroendocrine tumors. See Discussion. |
According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2023: Code Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) in the data item Other Therapy, code 1, Other. See SINQ 20220042 and 20230005 for information pertaining to cases diagnosed in 2023 or later. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
