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.
Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for an "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture"? See Discussion.
Scenario: Addendum from Mayo Clinic review, IHC and consultation made dx of "anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture". The original micro states 'high grade glial neoplasm w/o characteristic features of glioblastoma multiforme in that it lacks areas of significant necrosis, no nuclear palisading nor endothelial vascular proliferation...."
The best code available according to our pathologist consultant is 9505/3 [Ganglioglioma, anaplastic]. According to our consultant, while ganglioglioma is traditionally a benign tumor, anaplastic ganglioglioma is classified as malignant by WHO (page 103), and comes as close to fitting the description of this tumor as any other term.
MP/H Rules--Bladder: Is a TURBT in 4/07 that demonstrates papillary carcinoma (8130/3) followed two weeks later with biopsies that demonstrate high grade flat dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (8010/2) two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary.
Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of "Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for a neuroendocrine neoplasm described as a carcinoid and also referred to as oncocytic? See Discussion.
Left mainstem bronchus mass excised: metaplastic endobronchial mucosa with submucosa containing an infiltrating poorly diff malignant tumor. Origin of tumor is not identified in overlying mucosa. IHC stains will be performed.
Addendum #1. IHC stains show well diff neuroendocrine neoplasm, favor carcinoid. Recommend sending this to expert in lung neoplastic pathologist.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code as 8246 [Neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, the neuroendocrine description is more specific than the oncocytic description in this case.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.
Multiple primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded in this situation?
How would the bone marrow involvement by only NHL be handled? Composite lymphoma (9596) as defined by SEER and ICD-O is NHL and HD in one node which fits the final impression on the removed cervical node. See Discussion.
Patient presented with cervical, supraclavicular & superior mediastinal lymphadenopathy. A cervical node was excised for pathological review. The final impression on that node was Composite lymphoma characterized by (1) Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma [HD] (2) CLL/SLL [NHL]. Then, a bone marrow aspirate/bx was performed revealing CLL/SLL [NHL].
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is a single primary. The histology code is 9596/3 [composite Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma].
According to the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9596/3 followed by 9670/3 is one primary.
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.
Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for a 2007 diagnosis of basal-type breast carcinoma?
Code basal-type breast carcinoma to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS].
Basal-type breast carcinoma is a subtype of infiltrating duct carcinoma thought to have a poorer prognosis. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for basal-type breast carcinoma.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion.
After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Anus: What is the correct histology code and MP/H histology rule to use for AIN-3 arising in a polyp? See Discussion.
Patient has colonoscopy with excision of small 5mm polyp in rectum (no mention of anus or anal canal); path reads out: AIN-3 (anal intraepithelial neoplasm grade 3).
In coding the histology using the "Other Sites" rules, H2 would be the first rule that applies for this case. However, we lose the fact that the AIN-3 arose in a polyp (H3). Is this how SEER wants these cases coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H2 and assign histology code 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III). Apply the rules in order, H2 precedes H3.
An official website of the United States government
Home