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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion.
None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.
The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.
MP/H Rules--Colon: What histology would you assign to a single tumor with the histology 'well differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma confined to the appendix'? Does rule H4 apply to this diagnosis or should we continue on in the rules to H14 and code the higher histology?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H4.
Stop at the first rule that applies to the case. Rule H4 is the first rule that applies.
The polyp rule, H4, comes before many of the other colon rules because it is important to know that the malignancy originated in a polyp.
First course treatment--Prostate: If a patient has a prostatectomy and the margins are positive, then several months later radiation is given because the PSA levels never decreased or have risen, is the radiation coded as first course of treatment or subsequent treatment?
Record the radiation as first course of treatment even though it was delayed for several months.
Radiation is highly effective when there is a small or microscopic amount of tissue left at the margin following prostatectomy. In most regions, radiation therapy is the standard of care for positive margins at prostatectomy.
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.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Now that code 50 [fixed/matted ipsilateral axillary LNS, NOS] is obsolete, how is this field coded for a case in which there are clinically matted lymph nodes, no neoadjuvant therapy, and no lymph node size on the available pathology report?
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.From the American College of Surgeons: The pathologic information always takes precedence over the clinical information when there is no neoadjuvant therapy. The size reference is that this is not ITC or micromets. Clinically, I don't think you can have fixed or matted nodes that aren't greater than micromets. This would be coded to 52. The mapping for all of these codes is not taken from this, but from the value of SSF3 per the note at the bottom of the table. See CS Lymph Nodes note 2.
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.
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.
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.
MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.
A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
An official website of the United States government
Home