Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:
Lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse, intermediate in 1995
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in June, 2005
According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same primary.
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.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?
RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.
The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.
In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.
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.
CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?
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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.
Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.
CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded for a high grade urothelial carcinoma with "focal micropapillary features and invasion of lamina propria, with a note stating there is invasive carcinoma focally involving thin muscle bundles...difficult to distinguish whether muscularis propria or muscularis mucosae"?
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 15 [Invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue (tunica propria, lamina propria, submucosa, stroma)]. The information provided confirms invasion of the lamina propria (code 15) but is not definitive enough to assign a code higher than 15.
Reportability/Histology--Gallbladder: Is Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia reportable? The primary site is gallbladder.
Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia is not reportable. The WHO assigns a behavior of 0 to these neoplasms.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Breast: Are the codes on page 94 of the SEER manual's Breast Grading Conversion Table requiring conversion of nuclear grades 1/3 and 1/2 to code 1, 2/3 to code 2, and 2/2 and 3/3 to code 3 correct or are the codes on page C-473 in the Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade) for breast correct that requires conversion of the same examples to codes 2, 3, and 4 respectively?
On page C-473: Delete the section titled "Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade)" and delete the table. Use the tables on pages 94 and C-472 to code grade for breast cancer. This correction will be made in the next errata.
Reportability/Histology--Stomach: According to the AJCC manual, histology codes 8240 and 8249 are excluded from site code C160. Does that mean that I cannot use either of these histology codes with C160 even if the pathologist's diagnosis is neuroendocrine carcinoma?
Please understand that AJCC sets the standards for TNM Staging and the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) initiative sets standards for the validity of site and morphology combinations. The statement in the AJCC manual “8240 and 8249 are excluded for topography code C160” means that these two histologies are not staged using the AJCC Staging System. As with numerous other reportable entities that are not staged by AJCC, the case is reportable and a Summary Stage should be assigned. Combinations of C160 with 8240 or 8249 are valid site/histology combinations for registry reporting and should not be discouraged from use if they correspond to the pathologist’s diagnosis. This goes for any other similar note in the AJCC manual. All CPC standards are enforced via the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) N7040 and Histologic Type ICDO3, Primary Site, Date of Diagnosis (NAACCR) N4911 data quality edits. Registrars can also look up the validity of site and morphology combinations using the CPC*Search tool: https://seer.cancer.gov/cancerpathchart/search/tool/.
It is important to remember the following.
ALWAYS code the tumor histology stated by the pathologist/physician
NEVER change the tumor histology to assign TNM
Not all tumors or histologies can be staged per TNM
Cases that cannot be assigned TNM are assigned a summary stage
Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"?
Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.
Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant?
Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
An official website of the United States government
Home