Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Should pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) be coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ, NOS] or 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ]? See Description.
There is no specific morphology code for PanIN-III in the ICD-O-3. In the chapter for exocrine pancreas found in the sixth edition of AJCC cancer staging manual, pg 160, reference is made to PanIN-III and its inclusion with carcinoma in situ.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code PanIN-III (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia III) as 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ, includes DIN 3: Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 3]. PanIN-III is a synonym for carcinoma in situ according to the WHO classification of Tumors and the College of American Pathologists' Protocol for exocrine pancreas. Do not code PanIN-I or PanIN-II as cancer.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, see SINQ 20110081 and refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion.
Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)".
Would these examples be coded to 46?
Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3.
Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3.
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 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ.
Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading
Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.
12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.
Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.
Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.
Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: Should this field be coded to ovary or peritoneum when the bulk of the tumor is in the peritoneum and there is only surface involvement of the ovary?
If it is not clear where the tumor originated, use the following criteria to distinguish ovarian primaries from peritoneal primaries.
The primary site is probably ovarian, unless:
--Ovaries have been previously removed
--Ovaries are not involved (negative)
--Ovaries have no area of involvement greater than 5mm.
Descriptions such as "bulky mass," "omental caking" probably indicate an ovarian primary.
Descriptions such as "seeding," "studding," "salting" probably indicate a peritoneal primary.
Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?
If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded when the D&C which shows "adenocarcinoma with mucinous and papillary features" and the TAH demonstrates only "endometroid carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Should Histology be coded to 8380 [endometroid adenocarcinoma] because it is the most representative sample or to 8323 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma], per the Complex Morphology Coding Guidelines? The instructions in the Guidelines seem to imply that it is most important to represent combination histologies first, with majority (most representative sample) of tumor having a lower priority.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code Histology based on the pathology report from the most representative tissue. For the example above, code Histology to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma] based on the TAH/BSO pathology report.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Colon: What is the number of primaries for a case of familial polyposis with at least three separate tumors having invasive adenocarcinoma, one in the rectum? See Discussion.
A patient had a total proctocolectomy and was found to have familial polyposis. At least 3 separate tumors were identified with invasive adenocarcinoma, one of which was in the rectum. Is this 2 primaries: C18.9 with 8220/3 and C20.9 with 8140/3 or is this all one primary cancer?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Familial polyposis is always a single primary. Code the primary site for the case example above to C199 [colon and rectum].
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.
Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:
Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]
Familial adenomatous colon polyposis
Familial colonic polyposis
Multiple familial polyposis
In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:
Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system
Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty
History of colectomy
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.
Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER?
"Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home