Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190032 | Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion. |
Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded. Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung. Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant. No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options. Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0. |
Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer. To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20190040 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is peripheral blood with a diagnosis of monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable for any year? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype. While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable. SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3). |
The description in the question is for 9823/1 per WHO blue book 2016. This description and code are not reportable. We will review the other SINQ questions and revise if necessary. |
2019 |
|
|
20190054 | Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ? |
Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190081 | Race: How is race coded for a patient who self-reports as white? In the Family History portion of the genetics consult, it states the maternal family is of mixed European and Cherokee descent; the paternal side is of mixed German/mixed European descent. Is race coded as Race 1: 03-American Indian and Race 2: 01-White, or as 01-White according to self-report by the patient? |
Self-reported information is the highest priority for coding race. That is because the race information for the U.S. population comes from census data and that information is self-reported. For national cancer statistics, in order for the numerator (cancer cases) and the denominator (population) to be comparable, use self-reported race information whenever it is available. We will add this clarification to the SEER manual. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190077 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018: How should SEER Summary Stage 2018 be coded for a 2018 thymus primary which has mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement? See Discussion. |
The Extent of Disease (EOD) manual states that "Confined to thymus WITH mediastinal or pleural involvement" should be coded as regional by direct extension. I have EOD primary tumor coded as 200 and based on SEER*RSA, this is localized. |
Code 200 derives Regional Extension (RE) for Summary Stage; however, based on the information you provided, thymus primary with mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement, EOD Primary Tumor would be coded to 100: Confined to thymus (encapsulated tumor), which includes extension into the mediastinal fat; No mediastinal or pleura involvement. This derives "Localized" for Summary Stage. Per AJCC T1, extension into the mediastinal fat is separate from involvement of the mediastinal pleura. For Summary Stage 2018, this would be code 1, Localized only (localized, NOS): Confined to thymus, NOS; No mediastinal or pleura involvement or UNKNOWN if involved. We will note that "extension into the mediastinal fat" is included in code 100 for the next release (September 2020). |
2019 |
|
|
20190049 | Lymph nodes/Melanoma: Is a single axillary lymph node regional or distant for a patient diagnosed in 2018 with metastatic melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was an single axillary lymph node excision that was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined; the primary site is coded to C449. See Discussion. |
The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do. |
Lymph node mets from a melanoma of unknown primary site are presumed to be regional if the lymph node mets are confined to one area, as they are in this case. We are assuming there are no previous melanoma diagnoses for this patient. The workup should include examination of the skin areas that drain to the axillary area. |
2019 |
|
|
20190026 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Does Rule M11 in the 04/2019 Solid Tumor Rules Urinary update apply to synchronous/simultaneous tumors only or to multiple tumors with any timing? See Discussion. |
Rule M11 states: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs, but neither the Rule nor the Notes describe the timing of these multiple urinary organ carcinomas. Timing requirements for other rules are clearly stated. Does Rule M11 have a timing requirement or is it intended to apply to all urothelial carcinoma tumors regardless of timing (and not already qualifying for application of a previous M rule)? |
The revised Urinary Solid Tumor Rules 2018 Rule M11, updated April 2019, removed the requirement of synchronous. This applies to urothelial carcinoma (8120) and its corresponding subtypes, regardless of behavior, that occur in more than one urinary site in a patient's lifetime. See change log for the April 2019 update to urinary rules.This is the same M/PH rule for multiple sites. Timing does not factor in to this rule. |
2019 |
|
|
20190046 | Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging? |
For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details. |
2019 | |
|
|
20190094 | Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Skin: Is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) reportable as a lymphoma? See Discussion. |
The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa. |
Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is not reportable. ENV is a rare form of chronic lymphedema caused by any number of conditions including neoplasms, trauma, radiation treatment, congestive heart failure, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic venous stasis, and parasitic infection. |
2019 |
|
|
20190045 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with a right lateral tongue (C023) tumor in 2016 that was verrucous carcinoma (8051), followed by a new left tongue border (C021) tumor in 2019 that was squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070)? See Discussion. |
According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075). Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3). |
Accession a single primary based on the 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M13 as none of the other rules apply to the situation. Not all histology codes are contained in the tables in the Solid Tumor Rules as they list the more common histologies. Verrucous carcinoma is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma according to Table 3 of the Rules. Solid Tumor rule tables are based on 4th Ed WHO Blue Books. Verrucous SCC is not included in oral cavity/mobile tongue chapter. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
