System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/03/2024 13:21 PM

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:

  1. C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)

  • C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)

    • First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:

    • RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)

  • RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)

  • RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)

    • 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
    		20220005

    Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology:  Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion.

    A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.”  Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.

    Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.  "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability.  It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis).  Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise.  As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care.

    		 2022
    		20220024

    Update to Current Manual/Residence at diagnosis:  Would an exchange student be a temporary resident of the SEER area or a non-resident?  See Discussion.

    A 17 year old exchange student was brought into the hospital with appendicitis.  The patient had an appendectomy; there was no follow up treatment.  5/27/2006 pathology report of vermiform appendix:  Adenocarcinoid appendix <5 mm tumor limited to appendix.

    The patient has no record in Lexis Nexus and no social security number.  The address is a post office box; additionally, the patient’s birthplace is Switzerland and is lost to follow up.

    Code the residence where the student is living for exchange students temporarily living in the U.S.  Code the temporary address if known or the Post Office Box if unknown.  We will add this scenario to the next release of the SEER manual.

    		 2022
    		20170030

    Surgery Primary Site--Melanoma: How should Surgery of Primary Site be coded for a melanoma diagnosed on punch or shave biopsy followed by a wide excision that shows no residual disease and the gross wide excision specimen size showing no residual is greater than 1 cm in all dimensions (length, width and depth)? See Discussion.

    Discussion: Example: Shave biopsy with superficial spreading melanoma, Breslow 0.25 mm, Clark level II. Excision with no residual melanoma and gross description of specimen size is 4.0 x 1.6 cm skin ellipse excised to a depth of 1.8 cm.

    We have differing opinions in our registry.

    Opinion 1: We can assume margins are greater than 1 cm based on the excision specimen size when there is no residual tumor on excision and all dimensions of the excision specimen are more than 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 40s range.

    Opinion 2: We should assume the melanoma defect was in the middle of the excision specimen, so for a skin ellipse that is 4.0 x 1.6 cm, there would be a 2 cm and 0.8 cm margin (respectively) from the middle of the specimen, thus margins are not > 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 30s range.

    Assign code 30: Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The margins are unknown. The registrar should not try to determine the margins when they are not specified. See the SEER Note at the top of page 2 in the Skin Surgery Codes section of Appendix C of the SEER manual "If it is stated to be a wide excision or reexcision, but the margins are unknown, code to 30." https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/AppendixC/Surgery_Codes_Skin_2016.pdf

    		 2017
    		20210078

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer:  How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules?  Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries?  See Discussion.

    Details

    4/15/2018:  Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma.  Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome.

    1/21/2019:  Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas

    8/7/2019:  Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report

    9/30/2020:  Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas.  

    10/14/2020:  Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note:  History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection.

    10/18/2021:  Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma

    Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules

    #1:       4/15/2018:  C445-1

    #2:       1/21/2019:  C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18

    #3:       8/7/2019:  C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8

    #4:       8/7/2019:  C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12

    #5:       8/7/2019:  C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11

    #6:       9/30/2020:  C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10

    #7:       9/30/2020:  C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18.

    #8:       10/18/2021:  C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10

    Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.  Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries.  This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma.  According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis.  In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes. 

    		 2021
    		20110073 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion.

    1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.

    4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)

    7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.

    Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority?

    this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."

    The steps used to arrive at this answer are:

    Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.

    Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.

    Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule.

    		2011
    		20130219 Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Breast: Can a mammogram BIRADS 4 or 5 assessment be used to assess reportability and can the date of the mammogram be used to code the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.

    1. Assessment: BIRADS category 4-suspicious. Findings are considered suspicious/indeterminate for malignancy

  • Assessment: BIRADS 5- highly suspicious. Findings are highly suggestive of malignancy.

  • Assessment: BIRADS 4- suspicious abnormality consider biopsy

    • Can the BIRADS number be used to assess reportability? Can a BIRADS assessment of "suspicious" be used to code the date of diagnosis?

    		BIRADS category 4 and category 5 mammograms are not to be interpreted as a reportable "malignancy" for cancer registry purposes nor are they to be used to code the date of diagnosis should the patient subsequently have a malignancy confirmed. 2013
    		20230052

    Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What is the primary site of a meningioma arising from the jugular bulb/petrous aspect of the temporal bone? See Discussion.

    Example

    July 2022, Brain CT describes a mass appearing to be centered on the petrous aspect of the temporal bone with intracranial and extracranial extension.

    July 2022, Brain MRI describes an extra-axial mass centered in the right jugular bulb with intracranial and intraosseous extension as well as extension within the internal jugular vein. 

    September 2022, Resection operative report surgical findings are of a calcified mass filling middle ear, abutting stapes and appearing to enter the stapes obturator foramen, debulked. Final diagnosis is right middle ear meningioma, WHO grade I of III.

    Is this a reportable intraosseous meningioma of the temporal bone/skull base, or a non-reportable meningioma arising in a meningocele within the middle ear?

    Do not report cases of meningioma originating in the jugular bulb or petrous aspect of temporal bone or middle ear. These are not intracranial locations.  

    This is a non-reportable meningioma arising in a meningocele within the middle ear. The jugular bulb is the confluence of the lateral venous sinuses situated in the jugular fossa. The precise location of this structure within the temporal bone is variable.The jugular bulb, petrous aspect of temporal bone, and middle ear are not intracranial locations, and therefore meningiomas arising in these areas are not reportable.  

    		 2023
    		20130165 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries are reported and what is histology for the papillary carcinomas if a Classical cytomorphology with a follicular architecture is on the right and a Columnar cell cytomorphology with a follicular and papillary architecture is on the left? See Discussion.

  • Dominant Tumor: Tumor

  • Laterality: Right lobe

  • Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 9 cm

  • Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma

  • Variant, specify: Classical

  • Architecture: Follicular

  • Cytomorphology: Classical

  • Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 6 cm

  • Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma

  • Variant, specify: Columnar cell

  • Architecture: Solid, follicular, and papillary

  • Cytomorphology: Columnar cell

    • The answer seems to hinge on whether or not the two tumors differ at the third digit of histology. Can we code the histology based on the terms listed for variant or architecture?

    		This is a single thyroid primary. The tumors are both papillary carcinoma with follicular architecture for the most part. Apply Rule M6 and abstract a single primary. 2013
    		20130203 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1) and MRI evidence of dozens of cavernous angiomas/malformations throughout the supra and infratentorium? See Discussion.

    9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).

    9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.

    9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations.

    This case is not reportable as is. The clinical diagnosis on the 9/13/13 MRI was "cerebral cavernous angiomas," but the final impression on the MRI was a re-demonstration of the numerous scattered foci consistent with cavernous malformations seen on the previous 9/9/11 MRI. There was no reportable statement of cavernous angioma. Cavernous malformation is not a reportable neoplasm; it has no valid ICD-O-3 code.

    Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS. When they arise in blood vessels or bone, they are not reportable. Do not report vascular tumors when there is not enough information to determine whether they arise in the dura or parenchyma or elsewhere.

    		2013