MP/H Rules--Colon: What histology would you assign to a single tumor with the histology 'well differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma confined to the appendix'? Does rule H4 apply to this diagnosis or should we continue on in the rules to H14 and code the higher histology?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H4.
Stop at the first rule that applies to the case. Rule H4 is the first rule that applies.
The polyp rule, H4, comes before many of the other colon rules because it is important to know that the malignancy originated in a polyp.
Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported for a patient with a 6/5/12 RUL biopsy that is positive for MALT lymphoma and a 6/7/12 cervical lymph node biopsy that is positive for follicular lymphoma?
Per Rule M15, abstract two primaries for this case. According to M15, use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The result is two primaries, MALT lymphoma [9699/3] and follicular cell lymphoma [9690/3].
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.
Chemotherapy: If a physician does not document the reason chemotherapy was given concurrently with radiation therapy, should it be assumed to have been used as a radiosensitizer or radioprotectant and then, per SEER chemotherapy coding instruction 2, ignore coding the chemo agent as treatment?
Do not assume that a chemo agent given with radiation therapy is a radiosensitizer. Seek additional information.
Compare the dose given to the dose normally given for treatment. When chemotherapeutic agents are used as radiosensitizers or radioprotectants, they are given at a much lower dose.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?
For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only "I-125 seeds" to the prostate?
Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.
Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery Codes, NOS--Pancreas: What exactly is an extended pancreatoduodenectomy? Must the entire pancreas be resected in order to use code 70? What minimal requirements must be met to use code 70? How should a Whipple with cholecystectomy, partial omentectomy, common hepatic excision, portal vein resection, and lymphadenectomy be coded?
According to our research, a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) includes an en bloc resection of the pancreatic head, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, the duodenum, the upper jejunum, the distal portion of the stomach and the adjacent lymph nodes. The extended PD procedure includes extended lymphadenectomy, extended organ resection, and extended vascular resection and reconstruction.
Code 70 could be assigned without the entire pancreas being resected.
A Whipple procedure removes the head of the pancreas, duodenum, stomach and gallbladder and part the common bile duct. The portal vein resection is probably part of the common bile duct excision. If the omentectomy was performed for treatment of this primary, record it in "Surgical Procedure of Other Site." Record the lymphadenectomy in the lymph node data items.
MP/H/Multiple primaries--Stomach: How should I report this case? I reviwed both the MP/H and the Heme Rules and could not determine whether or not this case is multiple primaries in a single site but two histologies and therefore needing two separate abstracts.
Path Diagnosis: Gastric Mass Biopsy: 1) Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. 2) Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT Lymphoma). 3) Mild Intestinal Metaplasia and Marked Fundic Gland Atrophy, Negative for H Pylori. Comments: Biopsy shows presence of both signet ring carcinoma and MALT Lymphoma.
Report two primaries: MALT lymphoma and signet ring carcinoma. Use the 2007 MP/H rules and the Heme rules for this case.
This case could be an example of a "collision tumor" - two separate tumors that grow together into one mass. Collision tumors are a rare exception to rule M2 in the MP/H rules.
Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
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..."
An official website of the United States government
Home