Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20091028 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion. |
1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma. According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary. This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality). |
2009 |
|
|
20091063 | CS Lymph Nodes--Head and Neck: How is this field coded when a positive neck FNA is followed by a neck dissection that contains one of seventeen positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. | The primary site is the right tongue. The patient underwent FNA of a right neck mass that was positive for squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequent right modified radical neck dissection showed one out of seventeen nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. For head and neck primaries, the CS LN codes 10-19 represent a single positive ipsilateral regional node. Codes 20-29 represent multiple positive ipsilateral nodes. | 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.If the neck dissection included the area of the positive FNA, count only the positive nodes from the dissection. Avoid double-counting a positive node for both an FNA and a dissection. In the unlikely event that the dissection did not include the area of the positive FNA, add one positive node to the count from the dissection. This instruction supersedes previous instructions. |
2009 |
|
|
20091116 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as "recurrent at the anastomotic junction" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion. | MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term "recurrence" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a "recurrence" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.
Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.
However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.
Example when the term "recurrence" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.
One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it "recurrent." It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as "recurrent."
|
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term "recurrent" in this case is not synonymous with "metastatic." Apply the MP/H rules. | 2009 |
|
|
20091047 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for "serous carcinoma, papillary invasive pattern"? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8441/3 [Serous carcinoma, NOS]. Use the Other Sites rules. Start with rule H8 and stop at rule H11. "Pattern" is not one of the terms used to identify a specific type (See H16), so papillary is ignored. | 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 |
|
|
20091102 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. | Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. | 2009 |
|
|
20091012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. | In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology. Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion. |
2009 |
|
|
20091112 | Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion. | Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?
Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade. Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade. Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade. Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade. |
Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. | 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 |
|
|
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
