Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20091036 | CS Mets at DX/CS Extension--Ovary: Is carcinomatosis always captured in the CS Mets field? Can the term carcinomatosis be used to describe peritoneal implants as well? See Discussion. | 1/18/06 CT guided biopsy of abdominal mass & ant peritoneum nodule: Extensive carcinomatosis affecting the paracolic gutters, liver surface & pelvis. 6 cm tumor mass was visibly engulfing the small bowel & tube; poorly differentiated adenoca, mullerian derived, shows attributes of clear cell carcinoma, high grade (FIGO III), 2.5 cm size, does not involve fallopian tube. R&L abdominal wall & mesentery, mets adenoca. 5/31/06: tumor debulking with right salpingo-oophorectomy. Final DX: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, clear cell type, right ovary (FIGO III), stage IV per MD. |
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.In the case of ovarian cancer, the term carcinomatosis may refer to peritoneal implants, especially when the implants are numerous. It does not refer to distant metastases in this context. This issue has been forwarded to the CS version 2 committee. |
2009 |
|
|
20091017 | Primary site--Esophagus: How is primary site coded for a tumor arising in a segment of the esophagus that was reconstructed using a segment of the colon? See Discussion. |
A patient had a ruptured esophagus 25 years ago and had a segment of colon removed and transplanted to serve as esophagus. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with carcinoma in a polyp by endoscopic biopsy of the transplanted 'esophagus'. What is the primary site code? Is this the same site schema to be used for Collaborative staging and surgery coding? |
Code the primary site esophagus, NOS [C159]. Use the surgery codes and collaborative staging schema for esophagus. Document the unusual nature of this case in text fields. |
2009 |
|
|
20091110 | MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion. | Rule M7 states, "Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries." Should this rule be modified to say, "Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries"? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, "Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)"? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.
An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.
|
2009 |
|
|
20091029 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How should histology be coded for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus, NOS or a nevus, NOS? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8720 [Melanoma, NOS] to melanoma arising in a nevus that does not have a specific code or to melanoma arising in a nevus, NOS. Currently, ICD-O-3 does not have a specific classification for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091068 | Primary site--Bladder: What is the appropriate subsite for "adjacent to the bladder neck"? | Assign code C679 [Bladder, NOS]. It is not possible to determine the location of the tumor from the description. A tumor that is "adjacent to bladder neck" could be located in the trigone or on the bladder wall (anterior, posterior or lateral). | 2009 | |
|
|
20091097 | Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted if DLBCL (9680/3) and Mantle Cell Lymphoma (9673/3) occur at the same time in different lymph nodes? How would Sequence be coded if the case is multiple primaries? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:It is important to note for this case that the two different types of NHL occurred in different lymph nodes; one type in one lymph node and the other type in another lymph node. Use the fold-out table to determine single vs multiple primaries. According to the table, 9673/3 and 9680/3 would be two primaries no matter which of these was "first." Assign the lower sequence number to the primary with the worse prognosis when two primaries are diagnosed simultaneously. Base the prognosis decision on the primary site, histology, and extent of disease for each of the primaries. If there is no difference in prognosis, the sequence numbers may be assigned in any order. 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 | |
|
|
20091001 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: Are lymph nodes in the pericolic mesentery of the sigmoid that are removed during ovarian cancer debulking surgery, coded as regional or distant? See Discussion. | Debulking surgery found tumor in both ovaries and in lymph nodes of pericolic mesentery, which was removed en bloc with a segment of sigmoid colon (colon had tumor implants involving serosa). Pericolic nodes are not listed as regional for ovary. However Note 2 in the CS manual for Extension states "sigmoid mesentery" is a regional pelvic organ, and that metastatic deposits here should be coded in the extension field, not as distant mets. Should lymph nodes from this same area be coded as regional or distant? | 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. Lymph nodes in the mesentery of the sigmoid colon are regional for an ovarian primary. Code involved sigmoid mesenteric nodes under CS Lymph Nodes. |
2009 |
An official website of the United States government
