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: 12/27/2024 02:36 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091015 MP/H Rules/Histology--Gallbladder: What histology is coded for a tumor described as "90% high grade neuroendocrine ca, large cell type; and 10% low grade adenocarcinoma, conventional type"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

MP/H Rule H17 for Other Sites applies. Code the histology 8140 [adenocarcinoma].

The ICD-O-3 code for large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8013 and the code for adenocarcinoma is 8140.

 2009
20091013

Reportability--Skin: Is a "basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation" reportable?

The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.

According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.

The case example above is not reportable to SEER.

 2009
20091094 Reportability--Anal canal: Are squamous cell carcinomas arising in a condyloma of the rectum reportable or should we assume that the site is skin of anus or perianal area and not reportable? Squamous cell carcinoma arising in a rectal condyloma is reportable. Do not assume the site is skin of anus or perianal. 2009
20091082 Behavior--Breast: How is this field coded for a case in which the final diagnosis reports DCIS, but the CAP protocol or microscopic findings show microinvasion? See Discussion.

1. Path report for breast cancer has final diagnosis as 'DCIS' but the CAP protocol in the body of the report says 'microinvasion seen, T1mic.'

2. Path report says 'DCIS' in the final diagnosis and microinvasion is identified in the microscopic portion of the report, but it is not in CAP protocol format and not stated in the final diagnosis.

Code both scenarios /3 [malignant (invasive)]. Information regarding behavior is not limited to the final diagnosis or the CAP protocol. See page 84 in the 2007 SEER manual:

Code the behavior as malignant /3 if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited; i.e. microinvasion.

 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
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009
20081080 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion. A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?

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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.

If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:

  • Code CS LN's 80; code SSF 1 & 2 999, code SSF 3-6 000.

  • Code CS LN's 99; code SSF 1-6 999.

    		•  2008
    		20081044 MP/H Rules/Behavior--Melanoma of Skin: How are histology and behavior coded for a "malignant melanoma in situ with regression"? See Discussion. Per the microscopic portion of the path report, there is a zone of regression within the confines of the lesion, such that the possibility of antecedent invasive disease at the site cannot be ruled out with certainty.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code malignant melanoma in situ with regression to 8720/2 [Melanoma in situ].

    Code the histology according to the histologic type specified in the pathology report final diagnosis. Code the behavior as specified in the pathology report. Regression does not affect the coding of histology or behavior. See Melanoma Histology Coding rule H5. See 2007 SEER manual instructions for coding behavior, page 84.

    		 2008
    		20081106

    MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?

    Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.

    Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.

    Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.

    Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.

    See Discussion.

    According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.

    According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.

    Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.

    		 2008
    		20081043 MPH rules--Rectum: How is the number of primaries to be determined when a treatment plan has been completed, but it is not possible to determine whether there was a disease-free interval between occurrences? See Discussion.

    Patient diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the rectum in March 2006, underwent chemo and radiation therapy as treatment. Patient seen in April 2007 for surveillance colonoscopy. HPI stated patient underwent chemorad with good results. Colonoscopy showed "persistent" disease. Abdominal perineal resection was done in May 2007. Path showed adenocarcinoma of the rectum.

    Keeping in mind that we are not to use a clinical statement for determining recurrences, is the April 2007 occurrence counted as a new primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Do not abstract the 2007 events as a new primary. "Persistent disease" indicates there was never a disease free interval.

    		 2008