Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091020 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How do you code histology for a breast tumor when the comment section of the pathology report compares the current resected specimen with a previous needle biopsy? See Discussion. | A single tumor is described on the breast needle biopsy as "infiltrating lobular carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ" and on the lumpectomy specimen as "infiltrating duct carcinoma." Per the COMMENT section on the pathology report: "Tumor resection was compared to previous needle biopsy. The appropriate designation is probably a terminal duct/lobular lesion." | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8522 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] according to Breast MP/H rule H16. The comment on the lumpectomy pathology report takes both the lumpectomy information and the biopsy information into consideration. "Probable" is an ambiguous term used to code histology. | 2009 |
|
|
20091009 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. | Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. | 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 |
|
|
20091065 | Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a non-Hodgkins lymphoma case with scans that show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules and a large mediastinal mass? See Discussion. |
Patient presented with large bulky mediastinal mass. CT showed no pleural effusion. Findings also show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules. Biopsy of mediastinal mass showed malignant B-cell lymphoma of follicle center cell origin. Abdomen /Pelvis CT showed borderline lymph nodes in bifurcation. Clinical diagnosis was probable stage 3 if not 4 lymphoma. Per lymphoma guidelines, if extra-nodal primary site is assigned to the extranodal site if an extra-nodal site and its regional lymph nodes are involved. Would the parenchymal lung nodules be indicative of pulmonary involvement? If so, would primary site be lung? Or, would the parenchymal nodules be stage 4 disease and primary site be assigned to lymph nodes? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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. Code Primary Site to C779 [Lymph node, NOS]. In this case, there is no statement that lymphoma involves the lung. "Nonspecific parenchymal lung nodules" are not indicative of lymphoma involvement. Consequently, this cannot be assumed to be an extra-nodal lymphoma. Additionally, it is not clear whether or not the "borderline" pelvic lymph nodes are involved. If the physician cannot provide more information, follow instruction 4.e in the SEER manual on page 72. 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20091007 | CS Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius? | 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. Assign CS extension code 20 [Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS (EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11) Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].
A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091101 | CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Melanoma: How should these fields be coded for a case that is an unknown primary site melanoma with liver involvement and a positive axillary lymph node? | 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.Code regional lymph nodes positive 01 [one positive lymph node] and regional lymph nodes examined 01 [one lymph node examined] (assuming the positive node was the only node examined). If the only lymph node involvement is the positive axillary lymph node, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a regional lymph node. When only one chain of lymph nodes is involved with metastatic melanoma, the metastatic cells had to come from skin with direct drainage to those lymph nodes. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091081 | Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. | Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors. | If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.
Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:
|
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 |
|
|
20091087 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion. | Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix. | Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets. | 2009 |
An official website of the United States government
