Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110136 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can information from the CAP checklist that indicates, Tumor configuration: papillary be used to code histology to 8130 [papillary urothelial carcinoma] if the final diagnosis is also stated to be Bladder rumor: urothelial carcinoma and the pathologist stages the case as pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2017 ONLY: Code the histology as papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130].NOTE: In the CAP checklist, the statement that the tumor has a papillary configuration is a further description of this tumor. This is supported by the pathologist's stage of pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]. Use the information from the CAP checklist when available. The MP/H Rules will be revised to include the term "configuration" in the specific histology terms for in situ tumors. The steps used to arrive at this decision are Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Urinary Histo rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. In this case, the patient has a single bladder tumor per the submitted information. Step 2: Start at Rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H15. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Stop at Rule H7. Code the histology as 8130/2 (noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the urothelial carcinoma is stated to have a papillary configuration. For cases diagnosed 2018 or later, refer to the Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/ |
2011 | |
|
|
20110123 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term "of the elderly" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion. |
The only reportable term listed is "EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly." Are the following cases reportable?
|
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
|
|
20110135 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: Per SINQ 20110115, why is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded to 8260 [papillary adenocarcinoma] rather than 8050 [papillary carcinoma]? |
The histology codes for lung tumors are based on the World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors. Chart 1 in the MP/H Lung Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Charts, Tables and Illustrations (2007 MP/H Rules Manual) illustrates the WHO Classification of Lung Tumors. Using Chart 1, note that papillary adenocarcinoma [8260] is located under the Adenocarcinoma (NOS) branch. The histology in question was stated to be "micropapillary adenocarcinoma" and not "papillary carcinoma." Papillary carcinoma, NOS [8050] is not actually located on the chart. However, papillary squamous cell carcinoma is listed under the Squamous Cell Carcinoma, NOS branch, histology code 8052. Next, look up papillary carcinoma [8050] in the Morphology - Numerical listing section of the ICD-O-3. Papillary carcinoma, NOS is a Squamous Cell Neoplasm. (Refer also to SINQ 20091040.) The key word used to determine the appropriate histology in this case is "adenocarcinoma." This is a papillary adenocarcinoma and not a papillary squamous neoplasm. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110038 | Reportability/Behavior: Is a "minimally invasive thymoma" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion. |
For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a "Malignant Thymoma"? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021 According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.
|
2011 |
|
|
20110072 | Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. | In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor? | Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.
Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual. |
2011 |
|
|
20110014 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus Uteri: Which MP/H rule applies in coding histology for a "high grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (adenosquamous carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | Is the pathology describing a specific histology, adenosquamous carcinoma [8560/3]? Or is this a combination/mixed histology code per rule H16? The Rule H16 instruction is to code a mixed histology code, 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] from Table 2 when two or more of the histologies are present (i.e., endometrioid and squamous in this case). | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.
Column 1: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma Column 2: Squamous metaplasia Squamous differentiation Column 3: Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia Column 4: 8570
The change will be made in the next revision of the rules. |
2011 |
|
|
20100112 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is C448 [overlapping lesion of skin] or C449 [skin, NOS] the appropriate site code for a 2008 diagnosis of mycosis fungoides involving over 40 percent of the skin surface, including both upper and lower extremities and trunk? | Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS]. The code C448 should be used when there is a single overlapping lesion that includes all the disease. The patient has extensive skin coverage involving multiple skin subsites (upper and lower extremities and the trunk), but it is unlikely there is ONE plaque (one lesion) overlapping all these different skin subsites. The disease has more likely presented as multiple plaques (lesions) in these different areas. | 2010 | |
|
|
20100109 | Reportability--Ovary: Does the ICD-O-3 term "stromal endometriosis" [8931/3] always imply a reportable malignant disease process if the pathologist also states there is "no evidence of carcinoma" in the same report? See Discussion. | ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.
COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma. |
This case is not reportable. The pathologist states that there is no evidence of carcinoma. The ICD-O-3 matrix system applies, giving the pathologist the final say on behavior. | 2010 |
|
|
20100106 | Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion. | On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy? |
This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
|
2010 |
An official website of the United States government
