Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm.
Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, "Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs..."
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When there are no lymph nodes removed and none palpable for an inflammatory breast cancer and the physician stages the case Nx, is the CS Lymph Node field code to 00 [None, no regional lymph nodes involved] or 99 [Unknown, not stated] and would SSF 4 and 5 be coded to 000 [Regional lymph nodes negative...] or 888 [Not applicable]?
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.
Code CS Lymph Nodes 00 [clinically negative]. See note 3 for CS Lymph Nodes.
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
Primary Site--Melanoma: How would this field be coded for a pleural effusion consistent with metastatic melanoma and "no skin lesions?"
Code primary site as C44.9 [Skin, NOS]. ICD-O-3 does not list a suggested site code for 8720/3 because melanoma can arise in other parts of the body. However, C44.9 [Skin, NOS] is the default when the primary cannot be found.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be reportable.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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--Melanoma: Is the final diagnosis for an excisional skin biopsy of "compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression" reportable if a re-excision may be clinically indicated because there is an "overlap of morphology between malignant melanoma and nevi with severe atypia, and there's evidence of regression"?
Compound nevus with severe atypia is not reportable unless also stated to be malignant melanoma or melanoma in situ.
Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia.
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.
Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?
The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.
The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.
The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.
The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.
Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?
These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.
Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field when a patient has a history of a previous organ removal and has additional surgery/organ removal for a present cancer (e.g., History of a 1984 hysterectomy and in 2003 has ovarian primary treated with BSO)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 52 [Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy WITH hysterectomy].
An official website of the United States government
Home