Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210015 | Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion. |
Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia). |
The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease. . |
2021 |
|
|
20210047 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion. |
We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception. Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System 1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive. Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following: Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above. |
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3. Intramucosal, NOS Lamina propria Mucosa, NOS Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual. |
2021 |
|
|
20210068 | Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion. |
In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0? |
In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are "regional" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation. |
2021 |
|
|
20210045 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Treatment: What codes should be used for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the neoadjuvant therapy is still in progress at the time the case is initially abstracted as with rapid reporting. There is no code for neoadjuvant therapy still in progress and code 9 generates an edit for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response. |
Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and assign a code 9 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the treatment is still in progress. Revise these codes after the treatment has been completed. We will update the manual to include these instructions. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210076 | Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is a 2021 case of ecchordosis physaliphora (lesion within the prepontine cistern) on brain MRI reportable? |
Ecchordosis physaliphora is not reportable. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210060 | Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a 2021 diagnosis of a type A microscopic thymoma reportable? See Discussion. |
ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3). January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A). |
Report this case as type A thymoma. We consulted an expert physician and his advice on this specific case is to interpret it as a malignancy and report. Use text fields to record the details of this case. |
2021 |
|
|
20210035 | Update to current manual/Lymphovacular invasion--Thyroid: Are psammoma bodies only recorded as vascular invasion in papillary thyroid cancer cases? See Discussion. |
For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only). |
If you are collecting lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for thyroid cases, record "vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only)" as vascular invasion (code 1, Lymphovascular Invasion Present/Identified) in the LVI data item. Use a text field to specify that this is vascular invasion by psammoma bodies. |
2021 |
|
|
20210017 | Update to current manual/Mets at diagnosis fields--Lymphoma: Are distant metastases possible for a lymphoma with a primary site of lymph nodes? The instructions in the SEER manual tell us to assign code 8 in each of the Mets at Dx fields for a lymphoma originating in lymph nodes. |
This is a correction to the SEER manual. Lymphomas originating in lymph nodes (C77) could have distant metastases to any site except lymph nodes. The following corrections to the manual apply now and will appear in the next version of the manual. Remove C770-C779 from the instruction for assigning code 8 on the following pages. Page 135 Mets at Dx--Bone Page 137 Mets at Dx--Brain Page 139 Mets at Dx--Liver Page 141 Mets at Dx--Lung Page 145 Mets at Dx--Other Example Biopsy of axillary lymph node: Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma. Lymph nodes involved above and below the diaphragm, multiple nodules seen in lung, lesions in liver. Bone marrow biopsy positive for DLBLC. Per Hematopoietic manual, primary site would be C778 for multiple lymph node regions involved. Mets at Dx--Bone-0 Mets at Dx--Brain-0 Mets at Dx--Liver-1 Mets at Dx--Lung-1 Mets at Dx--Distant Lymph Nodes-8 Mets at Dx--Other-1 |
2021 | |
|
|
20210067 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further? |
Clarify the statement of "excellent" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
