Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210066 | 2021 SEER Manual/Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: What is the correct surgery code for a left upper lobe (LUL) wedge resection (confirming adenocarcinoma) followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection? Is the correct Surgery Code 22 since the lingula was not resected (not the whole LUL Lung)? Or should the appropriate surgery code be 33 (this surgery suffices to code to a lobectomy with the mediastinal lymph node dissection)? |
Assign code 22 for LUL wedge resection followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection. Code the lymph node surgery in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. We obtained input from an expert who agrees with this code. He states a lingula-sparing lobectomy is best coded as a segmentectomy because it is the same as an apical trisegmentectomy. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210012 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021/Multiple Primaries/)--Lung: How many primaries should be reported and what M rule applies when a diagnosis of presumed adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the left lung follows a known diagnosis of progressive multifocal malignant adenocarcinoma in the right lung? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities. There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment. While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case. |
Abstract a single primary using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rule M9. The 2014 and 2016 R lung tumors were pathologically confirmed; it is not stated if they were resected. Follow up after XRT noted stable disease but no indication of NED. Subsequent right lung tumor is also the same primary. The issue is the assumed left lung adenocarcinoma in situ. It is not clear how long the left lung nodules were present, but they appeared to be stable as well and only diagnosed as a malignancy based on treatment response. At this time M9 applies and the left lung AIS is not a separate primary. We have discussed at length with lung pathology experts the issue of determining multiple primaries. Identifying and diagnosing lung tumors has become easier with new technology and the result is patients are being diagnosed with multiple lung tumors. Some lung experts feel we are under-reporting lung primaries but all noted the many issues with creating rules for consistency. |
2021 |
|
|
20210008 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H6 be used to code the histology to lentigo maligna melanoma? See Discussion. |
Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule? |
Solid Tumor rule H6 is the same as MP/H rule H8. We found registrars have problems understanding reportable terminology and the corresponding ICD-O-3 histology code for lentigo maligna melanoma. It is included in H6 to capture cases where the registrar may not stop at H1. We will add another note to H1 instructing users to continue through the rules if the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma. |
2021 |
|
|
20210011 | Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion. |
Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts External Examination Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area. Final Anatomic Diagnosis Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies) Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated |
Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax). From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically). |
2021 |
|
|
20210041 | Reportability/Behavior--Paraganglia: Is a 2021+ diagnosis of paraganglioma reportable if the grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP) score falls outside the stated requirements for malignancy? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant. We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case. |
Report retroperitoneal paraganglioma based on ICD-O-3.2 histology/behavior that lists paraganglioma, NOS as 8680/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and forward. While GAPP is a predictor of metastatic potential, it does not factor into behavior, thus reportability. |
2021 |
|
|
20210074 | Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate? |
Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary, Fallopian Tubes: How many primaries should be reported and for which primary site(s) when pathologist identifies bilateral ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma with involvement of the left fallopian tube (also showing serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC))? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction. If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11. |
Bilateral ovarian tumors are a single primary per M7. Abstract the STIC as a second primary. SINQ 20210025 is intented to address situations with confliciting information about the primary site. The answers remain unchanged in 2012009 and 20210025. |
2021 |
|
|
20210003 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Head & Neck: The instructions for Table 9 of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules instruct registrars to code the primary site to C479 (Autonomic nervous system) for paragangliomas that arise in the head and neck region, but the ICD-O-3.2 provides a site-associated code for most of these tumors (C754, Carotid body and C755, Paraganglion). Which primary site is correct? See Discussion. |
While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755. Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755. |
Always code primary site to the site of origin. Look for information about where the neoplasm originated. Primary site should always be coded to reflect the site of origin according to the medical opinion on the case. Always code the primary site based on where the tumor arose / site of origin. Site of origin may be indicated by terms such as "tumor arose from," "tumor originated in," or similar statements. Refer to ICD-O-3.2 and ICD-O-3 for topographty codes that are associated with specific histologies whenthe medical documentation does not specify the primary site. |
2021 |
|
|
20210067 | First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further? |
Clarify the statement of "excellent" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields. |
2021 | |
|
|
20210072 | Hormone Therapy--Breast: How are hormone therapy (HT) and other related data items coded when a patient had a previous breast primary and is still on HT when diagnosed with a new breast primary? See Discussion. |
In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach? |
For this example: 1. Code HT as treatment on the date of diagnosis for the second primary. 2. Code Systemic/Surgery Sequence as 4. 3. Do not code neoadjuvant data items as neoadjuvant started/completed. The HT given would not qualify for neoadjuvant therapy since the intent of the HT was not neoadjuvant. The HT would affect the second primary, but it is still not neoadjuvant. 4. Code clinical and pathological tumor size accordingly, based on the imaging and the pathological findings. 5. Code Extent of Disease data items based on the pathological findings since pathological findings take priority over clinical and this is not neoadjuvant therapy. |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
