Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200028 | EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor/EOD Mets--Lung: Is EOD Primary Tumor coded to 500 and EOD Mets 10 when there are bilateral lung nodules with nodules in same lobe as the primary tumor? How is EOD Primary Tumor coded when separate tumor nodes are in an ipsilateral lung but there is no documentation as to whether it is in the same or different ipsilateral lobe from the primary tumor? |
Assign 999 to EOD Primary Tumor if this is the only information you have for your case.The mention of nodules does not automatically mean that you have separate tumor nodules. There are many reasons for the appearance of nodules in the lung, some of which are not due to cancer. Unless you have further information on whether the physician has determined that they are related to the lung cancer, then assume that they are not related. Assign 00 to EOD Mets. Do not code EOD Mets to 10 since you cannot determine whether those nodules are based on the tumor or not. If you are able to obtain more information, then you can update the EOD Primary Tumor and EOD Mets. Regarding the second question, if separate tumor nodules are noted, you cannot assume that they are due to tumor. Further information, or clarification, is needed on whether the separate tumor nodules are related to the lung cancer. Without further information, code EOD Primary Tumor to 999. There is also some information in the CAnswer Forum since Separate Tumor Nodules are a Site-Specific Data Item: http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/forum/site-specific-data-items-grade-2018/96061-lung-separate-tumor-nodules |
2020 | |
|
|
20200068 | Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: Are colon primaries coded as local or regional (direct extension) on Summary Stage based on invasion into the pericolorectal tissues? For example, is a case with an ascending colon tumor that extends into the pericolorectal tissues, pT3, local or regional by direct extension? |
Code as Localized using the SEER Summary Stage Manual, Colon and Rectum, Note 6. Localized is for subsites that are not peritonealized, including the posterior side of the ascending colon, or when the pathologist does not further describe the "pericolic/perirectal tissues" as either "non-peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" vs "peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues" fat and the gross description does not describe the tumor relation to the serosa/peritoneal surface, and it cannot be determined whether the tumor arises in a peritonealized portion of the colon. Refer to the coding instructions in both EOD and Summary Stage for a list of sites that are nonperitonealized or peritonealized. . |
2020 | |
|
|
20200053 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder. Would the metastatic diagnosis indicate a new primary? If the metastatic diagnosis indicates a new primary, would the primary site be C688 and date of diagnosis 11/14/18? See Discussion. |
7/8/16 Urinary bladder, biopsy: Non-invasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is not identified. 9/2/16 Urinary bladder, bladder tumor, transurethral resection: High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. No definite invasion identified. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is identified and not involved by tumor. 1/7/17 A\S\Bladder: Noninvasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Granulomatous cystitis, consistent with BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guerin) treatment. Lamina propria is not involved with tumor. Detrusor muscle is not identified. 4/4/17 Dome: Papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade. No evidence of invasion. Muscularis propria is not present. Patient is clearly followed for at least a year but no further information until 19 months later, 11/14/18, when biopsy of lung indicates metastatic disease. 11/14/18 Lung, right lower lobe, mass, biopsy: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis results (CK7 positive, CK20 focally positive, P63 positive, GATA3 positive, TTF1 negative and NAPSIN-A negative) support the diagnosis |
Do not use the solid tumor rules to assess the 2018 diagnosis. See Note 1 on page 20 of the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Urinary_STM.pdf The 2018 diagnosis proves that this patient had invasive bladder cancer. Change the behavior on the abstract to /3 and use text fields to record the details. |
2020 |
|
|
20200023 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Endometrium: Is the histology for a serous carcinoma, high-grade endometrial primary 8441/3 (serous carcinoma) or 8461/3 (high grade serous carcinoma)? See Discussion. |
Path report reads: 7/15/2019 A. Endometrium, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. B. Endometrial polyp, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. If coded to 8461/3, according to AJCC, this would not be an ideal code (since it is outdated). Also, endometrium is not included in the suggested site codes for 8461/3 according to the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 update. |
Code histology for this endometrial primary to serous carcinoma 8441/3. Capture "high grade" in the grade field as instructed in the grade coding manual. "High grade serous carcinoma" has specific clinical and histopathologic features found in ovarian tumors. |
2020 |
|
|
20200025 | Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion. |
The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies? |
Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else. If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability. |
2020 |
|
|
20200044 | Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia, moderate to severe, reportable and if so, what are the histology and behavior codes? See Discussion. |
Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2? |
Report this case as 8077/2. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this and confirmed it is reportable. Here is some of his rationale. The pathologist's designation as "moderate to severe" indicates there are areas of 2/3 of full thickness epithelial change, so the criteria to report are met. |
2020 |
|
|
20200049 | Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Lymphoma Orbital Adnexa: What is the correct Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for the site/histology Orbit, NOS (C696), 9699/3? In SEER*RSA, Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor references code 7 (Distant), whereas SS2018 assigns code 2 (Regional)? See Discussion. |
We received an edit error in SEER*DMS on the following site/histology (Orbit, NOS (C696)/9699/3) that involved an incorrect staging code being assigned to SS2018. The staging language is identical in AJCC, EOD and SS2018. SEER*RSA notes that SS2018 should be coded distant, but in the SS2018 manual, this language is noted Regional. Staging language is: Orbital adnexal lymphoma AND extraorbital lymphoma extending beyond the orbit to adjacent structures--Bone, Brain, Maxillofacial sinuses |
To clear this edit of the derived Summary Stage (based on EOD) and the manually assigned Summary Stage (based on Summary Stage 2018), assign the manually assigned Summary Stage to 7. For this particular case, EOD Primary Tumor 700 (which is correct based on the information received) derives Distant; however, for Summary Stage 2018, this description is under Code 2 for Regional by direct extension. This is an error. For 2022, Summary Stage for Lymphoma Ocular Adnexa description under Code 2 (Regional by direct extension) will be moved to Distant. No changes will be done to EOD. |
2020 |
|
|
20200072 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when there are multiple synchronous/non-contiguous tumors when one tumor is metaplastic carcinoma (with carcinoma No Special Type (NST) or lobular carcinoma) and another tumor is strictly carcinoma, NST? See Discussion. |
Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma? The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma. However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma. The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The term "mixed" implies a single tumor comprised of metaplastic carcinoma or variants of metaplastic and duct or lobular. The metaplastic histology is coded regardless of whether it comprises the majority (greater than 50% of the tumor). M13 is the only rule specific to metaplastic and is in the single tumor module. This implies a single tumor with both histologies. When there are multiple tumors, one with metaplastic or a subtype/variant of metaplastic and another with a histology listed on a different row, continue to the Multiple Tumors module. M13 applies and there are two primaries. We will add "single tumor" to the note in Table 2 in the next update. |
2020 |
|
|
20200052 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Prostate: How is the histology coded for a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma (5%) and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (95%) from a transurethral resection of the prostate? See Discussion. |
Following the existing Solid Tumor Rules Histology Rules, it would seem this is a single primary with histology 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) because there is no indication there are multiple prostate tumors and Table 2 states combined adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma is Combined small cell carcinoma (8045). Conversely, while not an exact match to this case, SINQ 20190083 implies small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries. In that SINQ case, the patient was simultaneously diagnosed with metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate on a liver biopsy and prostate adenocarcinoma on a prostate biopsy. There is no indication that patient had separate tumors in the prostate, however the SINQ instructs to code as separate primaries. Would the previous SINQ logic apply to synchronous diagnoses in the prostate as well? Or does code 8045 apply to this situation? |
Assign histology code 8045 for combined small cell carcinoma as this represents one tumor with mixed histologies using the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H16. |
2020 |
|
|
20200061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion. |
12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2. Histology 8130 01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin. 07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used? |
The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3. Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
