Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091058 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as "Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%"? See Discussion. | MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5. | 2009 |
|
|
20091123 | Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion. |
The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case. SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ. Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded? Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ. Reference: SINQ 20061123 |
A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor. |
2009 |
|
|
20091010 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded when a final diagnosis on a lumpectomy specimen states "adenocarcinoma" but the regional lymph nodes show "poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation"? See Discussion. | 3/23 left breast mass bx: infiltrating lobular carcinoma. 6/22 left breast lumpectomy: infiltrating adenocarcinoma; sentinel lymph nodes with metastatic poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation. Axillary resection with poorly differentiated metastasis in 8/9 nodes. The path micro states: tissue consists of sections of breast tissue having an infiltrating ca which in some areas infiltrates as small duct-like structures, and in other areas as small gland-like structures. In addition, there are foci in which the cells infiltrate in a single file fashion. In a few areas, cells having a signet ring appearance similar to those seen in the lymph nodes are encountered. In other areas, the signet ring appearance is not prominent. Areas of ductal or lobular ca in situ are not identified (the lymph node resection specimen shows 'signet ring appearance in some areas but no ductlike or tubular structures observed')
The comment on the lumpectomy path states: 'This is an unusual tumor in that it has histologic characteristics in varying areas, which would be consistent with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma, tubular carcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma. The metastatic material (8/9 total axillary lymph nodes) is most consistent with the poorly differentiated signet ring type portion of the tumor undergoing metastasis.' |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] using Breast rule H14. Code the histology from the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the most representative specimen (the lumpectomy in this case). Do not code histology from the microscopic description. Code the histology from the primary site whenever available, not the metastatic site.
Comments on pathology reports can be used to code histology. However, in this case the final diagnosis is more definitive than the comments. The comment provides several choices and none of these appear in the final diagnosis; an indication that the pathologist was not able to clearly identify a more specific type in this case. |
2009 |
|
|
20091042 | Multiple primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: How many primaries should be coded when a patient has multiple occurrences of plasmacytoma followed by a diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | Example: Patient had a diagnosis on February 2003, plasmacytoma of the sinus; June 2003, plasmacytoma of the alveolar ridge; July 2003, plasmacytoma of the skin; and June 2004, multiple myeloma.
If this represents a transformation of plasmacytomas to multiple myeloma, will the information on multiple myeloma be available for statistical and research purposes? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Accession this case as plasmacytoma diagnosed in Feb. 2003. Each of the subsequent diagnoses are not abstracted as new primaries. They are the "same," one primary only, according to the Definition of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table). The 2003 diagnosis is a classic example of extraosseous plasmacytoma (9734/3). Plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma would be two primaries in the new hematopoietic rules taking effect in 2010. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2009 |
|
|
20091089 | Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation"? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091064 | Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tonsil primary diagnosed on 4/16/07 by a regional lymph node FNA when the patient subsequently initiates radiation on 5/8/07 and has a tonsillectomy with neck dissection on 7/30/07? | The best way to handle this situation is to assign code 2 [Radiation before surgery] in Radiation Sequence with Surgery. Code 2 provides the best description of the sequence of events in this case. Radiation was delivered prior to the resection of the primary site. | 2009 | |
|
|
20091061 | Multiplicity Counter--Head & Neck: How is this field coded when a patient has carcinoma in the same location as a previous primary but it is unknown if there was a disease-free interval? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma, single tumor of the right true vocal cord in May 2008. Tumor was treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Excision of right vocal cord mass in February 2009 shows squamous cell carcinoma. | Assign code 01 [one tumor only] for the example provided (see discussion). Given the information provided, there is no reason to suspect that the February 2009 diagnosis represents new tumor; therefore, it does not affect the multiplicity counter. It appears that this was the treatment plan for the original diagnosis in May 2008: radiation and chemo followed by excision of the mass. | 2009 |
|
|
20091043 | Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion. |
Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2009 |
|
|
20091050 | Date of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How is this field coded when a second breast tumor is found at mastectomy two months after the original breast cancer was diagnosed, but during initial workup and treatment? See Discussion. | Breast cancer was diagnosed on core biopsy on 02-27-07. It was not known that the breast was harboring 2 tumors until mastectomy was done on 4-01-07. Both tumors are counted as one primary. | Code "Date of Multiple Tumors" field to the date of the mastectomy. That is the date that multiple tumors were discovered. | 2009 |
|
|
20091117 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion. | How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. | 2009 |
An official website of the United States government
