Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?
The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.
According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes "frank invasive carcinoma" for this histology as "neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas." WHO cautions that true infiltration should be "differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions."
Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3?
Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive].
"Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive.
Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Colon: Are extension codes 10 [Mucosa, NOS (incl. Intramucosal, NOS)] and 11 [Lamina propria] in situ, in accordance with AJCC stage for this site?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD codes 10 and 11 are invasive. SEER, to be compatible with Summary Stage 77 and 2000, calls EOD extension codes 10 and 11 invasive because invasion of the lamina propria is invasion through the lamina propria/basement membrane and therefore invasive.
According to AJCC, the survivial rates for tumors that invade only the mucosa or lamina propria are similar to Tis tumors, so the AJCC classifies them as Tis.
Behavior Code/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis on pathology indicates that an atypical meningioma invades the brain and the bone flap specimen indicates extensive invasion through the full thickness of the calvarium? See Discussion.
FDx on the path is: A. Rt frontotemporal brain tumor: Atypical meningioma, WHO grade II (out of III). B. Arachnoid tissue: Atypical meningioma with small focus of invasion into superficial brain and focal perivascular spread. C. Bone flap: Atypical meningioma with extensive invasion through full thickness of the calvarium.
Comment: Although this tumor shows a small focus of brain invasion, it should be considered a grade II (out of III) meningioma based on its histologic atypia (cellularity, sheeting of tumor cells and prominent nucleoli), elevated Ki-67 index and low mitotic rate.
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.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2004, the example above is a benign meningioma and not reportable to SEER.
For tumors diagnosed 2004 or later, code the behavior as 1 [Borderline malignancy]. Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors].
According to expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.
For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.
In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].
Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.
12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.
Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.
Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable?
No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
An official website of the United States government
Home