Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160003 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of Hurthle cell carcinoma (2.7 cm) and papillary carcinoma (0.3 cm) in the thyroid? See discussion. |
SINQ 20110028 includes a note that states "Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO." That case is a little different in that the Hurthle cell carcinoma was stated to be a probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma. The case above does not include that statement.
Is Hurthle cell carcinoma a type of follicular carcinoma? Does rule M6 (follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid w/in 60 days) apply, report a single primary? Or does rule M17 (tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes different at the third digit) apply thus leading to multiple primaries (8290 for Hurthle cell and 8260 for papillary thyroid carcinoma)? |
Apply rule M6 and report a single primary.
Hurthle cell carcinoma is a snynonym for follicular carcinoma of the thyroid. |
2016 |
|
|
20160002 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies. 1) Invasive lobular carcinoma 2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features See discussion. |
Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component? |
Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2. |
2016 |
|
|
20160001 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion. |
Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information? |
Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the "Beyond the Basics" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information. |
2016 |
|
|
20150067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion. |
Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant. |
Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150066 | Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.
|
Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade
Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm |
Assign 8201/2 for this case.
MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf
The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2015 |
|
|
20150065 | First course treatment/Chemotherapy/Drug category: Instructions in SEER*Rx state that Ibrance should be coded as chemotherapy. They also state that it is an endocrine-based therapy. Local physicians refer to Ibrance as hormone therapy. Please clarify. |
For cancer registry data collection, follow the instructions in SEER*Rx. It is important for all data collection to be consistent for reporting of cancer information.
Per the FDA: Ibrance is a chemotheraputic agent which was approved for use WITH Letrozole. Letrozole is a hormonal drug which may be why the physicians are stating the patient is receiving hormones. Ibrance should not be given alone to treat breast cancer. This drug will not be changing categories in SEER*Rx. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150064 | Primary site--Head & Neck: When there is invasive in one subsite and in situ in another, do you code the subsite with the invasive only? Would the correct site be C320, C328, or C329? See discussion. |
LARYNGOSCOPY - ENDOLARYNGEAL EXAM WAS GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE EXCEPT THAT SHE APPEARS TO HAVE A T1A SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF THE RIGHT TRUE VOCAL FOLD. IT EXTENDS FROM ALMOST THE ANTERIOR COMMISSURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VOCAL PROCESS AND IS EXOPHYTIC IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE VENTRICLE OR ONTO THE FALSE VOCAL FOLD. NO SUBGLOTTIC EXTENSION IS SEEN. A. RIGHT POSTERIOR FALSE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA IN SITU. B. RIGHT POSTERIOR TRUE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. C. RIGHT MID TRUE VOCAL CORD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. D. RIGHT ANTERIOR TRUE VOCAL FOLD, BIOPSY: INVASIVE AND IN SITU SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, MODERATELY DIFFERENTIATED. |
See the Head & Neck Terms and Definitions for guidance on coding the primary site, pages 17-18, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
Based on the information provided, use the statement from the endoscopy report and assign primary site to right true vocal fold [cord], C320. |
2015 |
|
|
20150062 | Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2) |
The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder. |
Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
1. Assign grade code 2
2. Assign grade code 4
See the note below the table in instruction #7. |
2015 |
|
|
20150061 | Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted. See discussion. |
The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ. Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3): 161-169 |
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf |
2015 |
|
|
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
