Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20120034 | Primary site--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site to be coded if a clinician used an MRI to diagnose a left cerebellar venous angioma? See Discussion. |
According to the WHO Classification of Brain/CNS Tumors, code 9122/0 (venous angioma) does not appear under tumors of the cerebellum (C716). |
Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490. The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA). |
2012 |
|
20120010 | Multiple primaries/Behavior--Ovary: What is the diagnosis date and histology for the primary(ies) abstracted for a patient with a mucinous cystic borderline tumor of the ovary in 2003 and a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma in 2011? See Discussion. | The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.
Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.
The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, "recurrent ovarian cancer." |
This is a single primary. The diagnosis date is coded to 2003 and the histology is mucinous cystadenocarcinoma [8470/3]. The bone, abdominal tissue and omentum are metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This is a case where an invasive or microinvasive element was missed in the original pathology. Because the entire tumor was not sectioned and placed on slides, the pathologist used their expertise when sectioning and selecting tissue to be examined. It is not a matter of poor judgment, just a fact that it is impossible to review the tissue from the entire tumor. The behavior must be changed to malignant [/3]. |
2012 |
|
20120018 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded if a lumpectomy reveals multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ spanning an area of 0.9-1.2 cm with close margins and a subsequent mastectomy reveals only a single focus of lobular carcinoma in situ measuring 0.2 cm in the UOQ, remote from all surgical margins? See Discussion. | Does the general instruction apply in this case that indicates the histology is coded from the most representative tumor specimen resulting in the histology coded to 8500/2 [DCIS]? Or is the histology coded to 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] per Rule H28 because there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma [8500]? | Code the histology to duct and lobular carcinoma in situ [8522/2].
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module Rule M4 because the patient had multiple foci of DCIS and a separate, single focus of LCIS. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Tumors that are lobular and duct are a single primary.
Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H20 because the patient has multiple foci of DCIS and LCIS. Code the histology as 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.
The DCIS and LCIS are separate tumors. The DCIS was removed by the lumpectomy and the LCIS by the mastectomy. The most representative specimen for the DCIS is the lumpectomy. The most representative specimen for the LCIS is the mastectomy. Both pathology reports must be used in this case to determine the histology. |
2012 |
|
20120059 | Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. | In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500. | Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.
If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5]. |
2012 |
|
20120094 | Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion. |
VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process? |
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina. |
2012 |
|
20120029 | Primary site--Lung: What is the code for primary site if a small cell carcinoma presents as mediastinal masses? | Code the primary site to main bronchus [C340].
Primary small cell carcinoma in the thymus/mediastinum is rare. A bronchial lesion with extension into the mediastinum is much more likely. In a case like this, it is difficult to be sure exactly where the tumor arose, however, it is recommended the default site be the main bronchus when there is no information to the contrary.
|
2012 | |
|
20120070 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a bone marrow biopsy shows myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 (RAEB-2) and myelofibrosis? See Discussion. | Should the myelofibrosis be accessioned as a second primary? Or is it a descriptor of the MDS/RAEB-2? The multiple primaries calculator shows 9983/3 and 9961/3 represent two primaries. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary per Rule M2 which indicates you are to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9983/3 [refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 (RAEB-2)].
Per Appendix F, myelofibrosis, NOS, is NOT a synonym for primary myelofibrosis. Myelofibrosis, NOS, if not specified to be myelofibrosis, therefore, is not reportable.
Per PH29, code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology (MDS) and one specific histology (RAEB-2) AND the Multiple Primary Calculator confirms the specific histology and NOS histology are the same primary (which it does).
Myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS is a generic disease description. In most cases, NOS histology is only the provisional diagnosis; the physician will run further diagnostic procedures and look for various clinical presentations to identify a more specific disease. The more specific myelodysplastic syndromes are: refractory anemia; refractory neutropenia; refractory thrombocytopenia; refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts; refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia; refractory anemia with excess blasts; and refractory cytopenia of childhood. If the characteristics of a specific subtype of MDS develop later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2012 |
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
2012 | |
|
20120021 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the terms "chronic" and "acute" used to help determine the number of primaries to be abstracted and what rule applies when a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is followed two years later by a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 3A of 3? See Discussion. |
7/31/08 Biopsy of the left supraclavicular lymph node diagnosed Stage IIIB DLBCL [9680/3] 10/14/10 Biopsy of a right supraclavicular lymph node diagnosed follicular lymphoma, grade 3A or 3 [9698/3]. Which multiple primary rule applies to determine the number of primaries to report? Is Rule M4 ignored? Does Rule M13 apply because follicular lymphoma normally transforms to DLBCL? Is this still a transformation because the follicular lymphoma came AFTER the DLBCL (the "acute" reverted to "chronic")? Or does Rule M15 apply, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator should be used to determine the number of primaries to report? Are "transformations" the acute phases of the more chronic disease? The Heme Manual and previous training sessions do not make this apparent. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M13. Code the histology for the 7/31/08 diagnosis to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and the code the histology for the 10/14/2010 diagnosis to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3A of 3]. Rule M13 applies to this case because the neoplasm was originally diagnosed in the blast or acute phase (DLBCL) and reverted to a less aggressive or chronic phase (follicular lymphoma) after treatment. Per the "Transformations to" section in the Heme DB for follicular lymphoma, grade 3 transforms to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. This means that the follicular lymphoma is the chronic neoplasm and that DLBCL is the acute neoplasm. In this case, the chronic neoplasm was diagnosed after the acute neoplasm was diagnosed and treated (with chemotherapy). Do not Stop at Rule M4 because diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma (both NHL's) were not present in the same node(s) AT THE SAME TIME. SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2012 |
|
20120030 | MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion. |
The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies? Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account? |
Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis. The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case. |
2012 |