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: 10/01/2024 09:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20160065

MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type described as adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous which involves multiple lung tumors present in a single lobe? See Discussion.

The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated.

Assign histology code 8254/3.

The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not include coding guidelines for mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors. Lung Table 1 (in the Terms and Definitions, pages 37-38, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf ) is very specific about which histologies can be coded to mixed adenocarcinoma (8255/3). Mucinous is not included per the note at the end of Table 1. Per WHO 3rd and 4th Ed Tumors of the Lung, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors of the lung are classified as 8254/3.  Mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma is a synonym for BAC, mucinous and non-mucinous.

2016
20160064

Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate.

WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ."

So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.

 2016
20160062

Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.

 

The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.

Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).

And

Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.

Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.

Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation.

2016
20160061

Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.

 

A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.

The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?

This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.

2016
20160060

Mets at diagnosis fields--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): How are Mets at Diagnosis -- Bone, Brain, Liver, Lung, Lymph Node, and Other -- to be coded for lymphomas in 2016? Are they always 0 if the TNM Stage is I, II, or III? How is bone marrow involvement coded -- in which Mets at Diagnosis field?

Note: Answer verified Sept. 2019, still valid for current cases.

Code all mets at diagnosis fields to 0 when the Stage is I, II, or III.

When the lymphoma is Stage IV, one of the mets at dx fields (other than Mets at Dx-Distant lymph nodes) needs to be coded to 1. Stage IV indicates that there is multiple extralymphatic organ involvement, diffuse involvement of an organ; liver, brain, lung or bone involvement, or bone marrow involvement.

For bone, brain, liver, and lung, code these as 1 when these sites are involved and they are not the primary site. This is the same instruction for solid tumor neoplasms.

For mets at dx-distant lymph nodes, always code to 0. For lymphomas, lymph node involvement is included in stage and not based on whether they are regional or distant.

For mets at dx-other, code to 1 for bone marrow involvement or if there is multi extralymphatic organ involvement.

 2016
20160058

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are blood thinners, e.g., warfarin, coded as treatment in the Other Therapy data item for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome? See Discussion.

Under the hematopoietic data base, treatment for polycythemia vera shows chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and phlebotomy. Essential thrombocytopenia shows blood thinners, anti-clotting medications, aspirin, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other therapy (Anagrelide) (for essential thrombocythemia only) and watchful waiting (for asymptomatic patients). Myelodysplastic syndrome shows bone marrow transplant, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and stem cell transplant.

SEER*RX under warfarin says: Per the 2012 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual (page 10), blood thinners and/or anti-clotting agents are to be coded as treatment (Other Therapy) for the following histologies: 9740/4 Mast cell sarcoma 9741/3 Systemic mastocytosis 9742/3 Mast cell leukemia 9875/3 Chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL 1 positive 9950/3 Polycythemia vera 9961/3 Primary myelofibrosis 9962/3 Essential thrombocythemia 9963/3 Chronic neutrophilic leukemia 9975/3 Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.

Based on information from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, aspirin and/or other blood thinners are not valid treatment for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome. These drugs are often given to relieve symptoms of the disease such as bone pain or side-effects of standard treatments including blood clots. The treatment information found on page 22 (2015 Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasms coding manual) will be updated and ICD-O-3 codes 9950/3 and 9975/3 will be removed from the list. SEER*RX has been updated to reflect this change.

2016
20160057

MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants?

Assign 8523/3.

The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime.

2016
20160056

MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular primary with a combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See discussion.

 

Patient had a radical orchiectomy with the final diagnosis of "Mixed germ cell tumor with the following features -- histologic type: Mixed germ cell tumor (teratoma 50%, yolk sac tumor 25%, and embryonal 25%)."

Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs.                            

2016
20160055

Reportability--Bone: Is an "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable? See Discussion.

Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).

Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology "atypical cartilaginous tumor" reportable?

Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is "atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I." WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).

Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3).

2016
20160054

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.

Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?

Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.

2016