Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is a chondroma, NOS or a chondroblastoma, NOS that occurs in an intracranial site or along the spinal cord reportable? See Discussion.
In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?
Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152
Chondroma, NOS or chondroblastoma, NOS occuring in intracranial sites or along the spinal cord are not reportable.
Chondroma, NOS and chonroblastoma, NOS are benign tumors of the bone itself, not the intracranial contents.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.
The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?
Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.
Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.
Multiplicity Counter--Prostate: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer for which sextant needle biopsy cores on left and right sides are positive for adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.
Prostate cancer typically presents as multifocal diffuse disease. The coding exercise in the MPH rules presentations coded prostate cancer as one tumor.
Reference: SEER Training Web Casts - Other Sites Rules Practicum
Code the number of tumors present if known. This information can be taken from any part of the record, including imaging and prostatectomy. If the only information available is "diffuse," or "multifocal," assign code 99. Do not assume there are multiple tumors just beacause there are multiple biopsies. When there is no information about the number of tumors, code Multiplicity Counter to 99 and Type of Multiple Tumors to 99.
Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?
If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.
Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:
in situ following an invasive,
invasive following an in situ,
in situ following an in situ,
or invasive following an invasive
are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.
This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, page 47, states to determine whether the physician is using the term myelodysplasia to describe bone marrow marrow malfunction or a neoplasic syndrome in order to determine reportability. What do we do when there is no information one way or the other?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Without further information, the term "myelodysplasia" alone is not reportable. If a more definitive diagnosis is made later, the case may become reportable.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home