System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 08/30/2024 01:20 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100054 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology specimen reveals an infiltrating mammary carcinoma with mixed tubular and lobular features, 2.3 cm, low grade cribriform in situ ductal carcinoma, and Paget disease of the overlying skin with ulceration? See Discussion. According to SINQ 20081134 the histology would be 8524 if this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary.

In order to determine whether this case represents a single or multiple primary, you must first determine the correct histology code for the underlying tumor. Using rule H9, ignore the DCIS.

See Table 3 in the equivalent terms and definitions. Infiltrating lobular, tubular, and Paget are coded to a single histology code (8524/3). Our current multiple primary rules do not say infiltrating lobular and tubular and Paget are a single primary. This was an omission and will be corrected in a future revision. Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention.

 2010
20091128

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.

"Chest wall" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the "recurrence" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.

 2009
20091053

Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a lobular carcinoma with positive margins is followed 8 years later by a lobular carcinoma near the previous lumpectomy site? See Discussion.

Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of "an area of distortion" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states "compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site" on an x-ray report.

One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart?

Abstract the 10/08 diagnosis as a new primary, per Breast rule M5. In spite of the positive margins and apparently incomplete treatment in 3/00, there is no mention of the presence of disease between 3/00 and 10/08 according to the information provided.

 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091127

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion.

We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries.

Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient.

Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine.

Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain).

 2009
20091103 Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Is a prostate biopsy that states "highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy" reportable? Do not report. "Not diagnostic of" means that while the pathologist is seeing some features that resemble cancer, there are not enough features to feel comfortable making an unquestionable diagnosis. Watch for another biopsy of the patient in the next 3-6 months. The statement "not diagnostic of" overrules the "highly suspicious" statement. 2009
20091118 Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: How are the surgery fields to be coded when patient undergoes hysterectomy and omentectomy for endometrial primary? See Discussion.

The example for instruction 6 in the 2007 SEER manual on page 179 (for surgery of primary site) states "code an en bloc removal when the patient has a hysterectomy and an omentectomy." There is no Site-Specific Surgery code for corpus uteri that combines hysterectomy with omentectomy. Is the information about removal of the omentum lost or is it documented under Surgical Procedure of Other Site?

Use the most appropriate code in the "Surgery of Primary Site field." Do not code the omentectomy in "Surgical Procedure of Other Site" when it is performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. 2009
20091014

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Please clarify what we should code when we see the term 'spitz or spitzoid' in association with melanomas. See Discussion.

Path reports often diagnose "melanoma with spitzoid features." There is no code for this in ICD-O-3. Would it be melanoma NOS with a specific type for MP/H rule H9 (with features of...), or would we stop at H3? Could the matrix principle apply, changing 8770/0 (one of the synonyms is Spitz nevus) to 8770/3 (although no Spitz synonyms are specifically listed under this code)? What if the path report says "melanoma arising in a Spitz nevus"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 - 2020

Assign code 8720/3 [Malignant melanoma] for melanoma with Spitzoid features, Spitzoid variant of nevoid melanoma, melanoma arising in Spitz nevus, or Spitzoid melanoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors groups these with Nevoid melanomas and codes them to 8720/3.

According to WHO, "Nevoid melanoma is a subtype of malignant melanoma of the skin that is distinctive in that the primary lesion mimics many of the architectural features of a common compound or intradermal nevus ... or a Spitz nevus... These lesions are defined not as atypical nevi, but as melanomas because they involve the dermis and have the potential for metastasis."

 2009
20091008 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a mastectomy and a sentinel lymph node excision, that yields only one lymph node, are performed? See Discussion. Is there a minimum number of lymph nodes that must be removed in order to code a modified radical mastectomy? Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy...] for a simple mastectomy with removal of one or more sentinel lymph nodes. As long as the nodes removed are designated sentinel, use code 41 for a simple mastectomy. 2009
20091054

First course treatment--Liver: Is planned therapy second course therapy if it is administered after documented progression of disease? See Discussion.

A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed.

In this case, neither the chemoembolization nor the liver transplant is part of the first course of therapy. The documented treatment plan was changed after disease progression. Chemoembolization was not part of the original treatment plan. First course therapy ends at this point.

 2009