Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"?
No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable].
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.
2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).
3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].
Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology of "well differentiated low grade lipoma-like liposarcoma (atypical lipoma)"? See discussion.
The pathologic microscopic description states, "Well differentiated lipoma-like liposarcoma, sometimes termed atypical lipoma. This tumor will behave in a low grade malignant fashion. Slow growing recurrences can be expected. Metastatic disease is very rare unless the tumor dedifferentiates."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8851/3 [Liposarcoma, well differentiated] and the Grade to 1 [Well differentiated]. This histology is reportable to SEER.
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.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion.
For example, if the original diagnosis is "poorly differentiated carcinoma" and the ROS diagnosis is "squamous cell carcinoma," would the morphology code be 8070/33?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).
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.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with "pre-epigolottic space" invasion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue."
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the primary site(s) for a patient who had a lymph node biopsy with the histology of "large B cell lymphoma arising in the setting of low grade B cell lymphoma c/w marginal zone B cell lymphoma with plasmacytic features"? See discussion.
This patient also had a bone marrow biopsy that demonstrated "low grade B cell lymphoma." Per the clinician, "Pt with discordant lymphoma. We will be approaching his lymphoma as two different diseases. The large B cell had cleared after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The low grade lymphoma is incurable."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code as two primaries with each arising in lymph nodes [C77._]. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone B cell lymphoma]. The histology for the second primary is 9680/3 [large B cell lymphoma].
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion.
Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate.
Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade.
Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.
Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.
Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."
The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.
Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified?
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered.
An official website of the United States government
Home