Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071023 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071022 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion. | Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype. Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology? Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability. 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. |
2007 |
|
|
20071020 | Histology--CLL/SLL: What is the correct histology code for a lymph node described in the pathology report comment section as "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia"? See Discussion. | Current rules instruct us to select the lymphoma code for lymph node and/or tissue with the dual diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. We have a cervical lymph node biopsy with that dual diagnosis, however, the pathology comment states that after immunohistochemistry testing, the lymph node is "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia." No bone marrow or blood work-up is performed. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma. The current rules have not changed. Code to lymphoma because the diagnosis was made on a lymph node. "Phenotypically consistent" means the lymph node contains CLL/SLL, not some other hematopoietic or metastatic disease. 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. |
2007 |
|
|
20071019 | CS Lymph Nodes--Melanoma: If the primary site is coded to C449 because no primary skin lesion is identified for a melanoma case, are any positive lymph nodes assumed to be regional? | 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 the CS Lymph Nodes field to 80 [Lymph Nodes, NOS]. Although it is in the CS LN field, use the code for Lymph Nodes, NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED when you don't know whether the nodes are regional or distant. There are separate codes to use when you definitely know that the nodes are regional. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071018 | Reportability: Is a "goblet cell carcinoid" of the appendix reportable? | Yes, goblet cell carcinoid of the appendix is reportable. The ICD-O-3 code for goblet cell carcinoid is 8243/3. | 2007 | |
|
|
20071017 | CS Extension--Prostate: Can the phrase "hard, fixed prostate" be interpreted as clinical extracapsular extension and coded to 50 [extension or fixation to other structures]? See Discussion. | Patient had a "hard, fixed prostate" with needle core bx positive for Gleason grade 4+5=9 adenocarcinoma extensively involving gland. PSA was 87.5. Lymphadenectomy showed 3 positive pelvic/obturator lymph nodes. No prostatectomy was done and no physician TNM staging documented. Do we need a specific clinical description of other organs to which the prostate is fixed in order to code CS Clinical Extension 50, or does the statement "hard, fixed prostate" qualify? If not, how would we code extension for this seemingly advanced cancer? |
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.Assign extension code 50 [extension or fixation to adjacent structures] based on the term "fixed." Fixation to a particular structure(s) does not have to be specified in order to use code 50. Do not use the statement "hard" to determine CS extension. |
2007 |
|
|
20071016 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.
M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:
Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071015 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes? | This question was answered by the CoC:
Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0. |
2007 | |
|
|
20071012 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is a skin excision final diagnosis of "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential" reportable if the path COMMENT states the initial shave biopsy diagnosis was "melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential [minimal deviation melanoma]"? See Discussion. | SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.
Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).
PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended. |
This case is not reportable. Based on the information provided, there is no definitive diagnosis of malignancy. | 2007 |
|
|
20071011 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion. | Right Breast 06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved. 09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved. 10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002. Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2007 |
An official website of the United States government
