Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031102 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology "Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, "Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation."
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031072 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description. |
The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]? |
Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage. For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report. |
2003 |
|
|
20031162 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for "B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description. | Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031146 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. | Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." | 2003 |
|
|
20031184 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a patient has a reduction mammoplasty (for macromastia) and within the pathology specimen there is an incidental finding of carcinoma? |
Code this reduction mammoplasty to the code which best fits the amount of tissue removed. Read the operative report carefully. Code as a partial mastectomy, skin- nipple- areola-sparing mastectomy, or total (simple) mastectomy. Use text fields to record the details. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031170 | Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence? Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed. In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031180 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal adenocarcinoma with medullary features?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Medullary is a subtype of duct and "with features of" is a term that indicates a majority of tumor. If this is an invasive adenocarcinoma with no in situ component, code to 8510/3 [Medullary adenocarcinoma]. If only one of the components is invasive, code that component.
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031095 | Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description. |
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension. |
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only]. In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension. |
2003 |
|
|
20031166 | EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are subpectoral nodes the same as interpectoral nodes and, therefore, regional for breast primaries? | Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. Subpectoral is the term generally used to describe the placement of a prosthesis during reconstruction (under/behind the pectoralis major muscle). That is the same location for interpectoral, or Rotter's, nodes. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
