Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis?
If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available.
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Histology: What is the histology code for a soft tissue thigh mass that was diagnosed as Ewing sarcoma/PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor?
The histologies stated for this case are Ewing sarcoma (9260) and PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor,(9364)*. Use the Other Site Rules, starting with H8. Stop at H17 and assign the higher histology code -- 9364/3 [Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor].
*The term "PNET" is used for two different tumors. One is primitive neuroectodermal tumor (9473) and pertains to brain tumors per ICD-O-3 review. The other is peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (pNET or PPNET 9364) and pertains to bone or soft tissue tumors. This case is stated to be soft tissue and Ewing sarcoma, so it is 9364 rather than 9473.
MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.
However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.
Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.
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.
Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:
Lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse, intermediate in 1995
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in June, 2005
According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same 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.
Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is a right cerebellopontine (CP) angle endolymphatic sac papillary tumor (ELST) reportable? If so, what is the histology code?
Revised December 2015
ELST is reportable. Code histology to adenocarcinoma (8140/3). Code primary site to inner ear (C301).
Endolymphatic sac tumors are rare non-metastasizing adenocarcinomas that originate in the endolymphatic sac of the inner ear (C301). They are slow growing and widely invade, and in later stages often destroy, the petrous bone. The WHO Classification assigns ICD-O-3 code 8140/3.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion.
The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be "suspicious for malignancy." The microscopic description states that the "lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia." Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a "suspicious" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.
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.
Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion.
The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors.
Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home