Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071111 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion. | A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm. Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX. What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract two primaries:
First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:
Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).
Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary. |
2007 |
|
|
20180102 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion |
A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different. |
This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3. He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity. |
2018 |
|
|
20180112 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), NOS as this is not on the AJCC list of histologies? See Discussion. |
A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post? |
Code NSCLC to 8046/3. Do not change a histology code simply to assign TNM to the case. AJCC does not determine histology coding. While pathologists are no longer encouraged to use NSCLC, it does not mean the term and code are obsolete. NSCLC could be any number of histologies such as adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma. A diagnosis of NSCLC indicates that the initial exam of the tissue did not identify a more specific type of NSCLC. Additional immunohistochemical testing is needed to determine the histology. Update the case if better information becomes available from subsequent tests/review. When analyzing the data, researchers and physicians will be able to identify the cases where the pathologist was unable to or did not perform further testing to determine a specific histology which drives treatment and survival. |
2018 |
|
|
20210027 | Reportability--Heme and Lympoid Neoplasms--Polycythemia vera: Is secondary polycythemia vera reportable? See Discussion. |
A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea. According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia. |
Abstract as a new primary for polycythemia vera, 9950/3. JAK2 is commonly used to assess suspected polycythemia vera and in this case, the mutation is positive for V617F. Based on the JAK2 results, this looks like a true polycythemia vera and not a secondary polycythemia. |
2021 |
|
|
20130156 | Other therapy--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Based on the hematopoietic manual instructions, is plasmapheresis coded as treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia? See Discussion. | A patient, who was diagnosed with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia at another facility, presented to our facility for plasmapheresis on 12/27/2012. No other treatment was given.
How is the plasmapheresis coded for treatment? |
Do not code plasmapheresis as treatment. It does not modify the neoplasm. | 2013 |
|
|
20081119 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion. |
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report. Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.) |
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case. The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly." The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology. |
2008 |
|
|
20091054 | First course treatment--Liver: Is planned therapy second course therapy if it is administered after documented progression of disease? See Discussion. |
A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed. |
In this case, neither the chemoembolization nor the liver transplant is part of the first course of therapy. The documented treatment plan was changed after disease progression. Chemoembolization was not part of the original treatment plan. First course therapy ends at this point. |
2009 |
|
|
20041066 | Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion. |
A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not. Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months. In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report "metastatic papillary serous adenoca." Chart now says "History of stage 3A ovarian cancer." |
Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided. |
2004 |
|
|
20000539 | CS Extension--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension for prostate primaries diagnosed at autopsy? See discussion. | A patient was not diagnosed prior to autopsy. The autopsy diagnosis states that this is adenocarcinoma of the prostate without capsular invasion. Should clinical extension be coded to clinically inapparent, NOS (10) and pathologic extension be coded to no prostatectomy done within first course of treatment (97)? |
Code CS Extension (clinical) to 99 [Unknown]. Code SSF 3 according to the amount of tumor found using the information from the autopsy. | 2000 |
|
|
20150060 | Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion. |
A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems. |
Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
