MP/H Rules/Histology--Rectum: When not specifically mentioned as part of the histology, is the adenoma a second histologic type, or just a further physical description of the tumor? See Discussion.
Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: "mucinous carcinoma, see comment". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states "histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma".
If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.'
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later
Other Sites histology rule H12 applies in this case. Assign histology code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Use information from the CAP protocol and from comments associated with the final diagnosis to code histology.
The fact that the malignancy arose in a polyp can be taken from anywhere in the medical record; not limited to the final diagnosis.
Based on the information provided for this case, the histology is adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma) arising in a tubulovillous adenoma.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis?
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1).
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries are to be reported and what histology is to be coded for an anaplastic/undifferentiated thyroid carcinoma with sarcomatoid transformation likely arising in association with a papillary thyroid carcinoma? Thyroid contains one tumor: 12.5 cm in greatest dimension...almost completely replaces entire thryroid gland.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This is a single primary using rule M2; a single tumor is always a single primary.
The histology code for this case is 8260/3 [Papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Begin with Histology Coding rule H8. Stop at rule H17 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: For von Hippel Lindau disease with multiple hemagioblastomas, is each hemangioblastoma reportable as a new primary? See Discussion.
Diagnosis of von Hippel-Landau disease, multiple brain surgeries between 2002 and 2007 for recurring hemangioblastomas, 9161/1. This disease manifests as multiple (recurring) hemangioblastomas.
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:
If the hemagioblastomas occur in sites with different ICD-O-3 topography codes, they are separate primaries.
Please note: Rule M4 in the Benign & Borderline Intracranial and CNS Tumors MP/H coding rules on the SEER website has been corrected to read:
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.
In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.
CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Wilm's Tumor: Is the fact that a Wilm's tumor case is bilateral captured in the CS Extension field or is the CS Mets at Dx field coded to 40?
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 laterality as bilateral, code the greatest extension from either side in CS extension.
Code CS Mets at diagnosis 00 [None] UNLESS true distant metastases were identified.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.
A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.
The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.
Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.
Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.
CS Extension--Corpus uteri: Can a suspicious cytology be used to code extension? See Discussion.
Endometrial primary confirmed by biopsy on 10/26/06. Pelvic washing on 11/14/06 was 'suspicious for malignancy.' Resection path the same day stated the primary tumor invades the inner 1/3 of the myometrium.
Can we use the pelvic washing cytology & code CS extension 61 or should CS extension be coded 12?
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 extension code 61 [cancer cells in peritoneal washings] for the case described above.
"Suspicious" is listed as a term indicating involvement. There is no exception noted for cytology reports. See page 122 of the 2007 SEER manual.
Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How is this field to be coded when a patient undergoes stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor? Path specimen consists of four fragments of tissue measuring .7, .6 and .3 cm.
Assign code 20 [Local excision (biopsy) of lesion or mass. Specimen sent to pathology from surgical event 20].
CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.
There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?
Examples:
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"
"2 cm invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS present"
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm. DCIS present"
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 SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.
If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.
An official website of the United States government
Home