Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170034 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Would you code a unilateral breast simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and AlloDerm or an acellular dermal matrix as Code 45, Reconstruction with Implant, or Code 46, Reconstruction with Combined Tissue and Implant? See Discussion. |
Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as "Tissue' as it also "provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant? |
Assign code 43 for a simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm. The tissue expander indicates preparation for reconstruction. The acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm is not coded because, while they often accompany an implant procedure, they are not the principle element of reconstructive procedures. The principle elements would be tissue from the patient and/or prosthetics (e.g., gel implants). |
2017 |
|
|
20170064 | Grade/Histology--Rectum: How should histology and grade be coded for high grade neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (WHO Grade 3) of the rectum? See Discussion. |
Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3. |
Assign histology code 8246/3. Assign grade code 4 based on the description "high grade." A high-grade neuroendocrine "tumor" is actually a neuroendocrine "carcinoma" (NEC) according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. If possible, verify this interpretation with the diagnosing pathologist. Use text fields to document the details of this case. |
2017 |
|
|
20170075 | MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary " See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary. SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease. |
Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary. Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used. |
2017 |
|
|
20170051 | Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion. |
Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy " intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia. |
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2. For more details, see the Reportability section of the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
2017 |
|
|
20170081 | Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category." Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA |
2017 | |
|
|
20170045 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is meningioangiomatosis reportable as meningiomatosis (9530/1) or angiomatous meningioma (9534/0)? See Discussion. |
Pathology report: Brain tumor, left side: Gliotic cortex and subcortical white matter with meningioangiomatosis (see Comment). Comment This specimen represents a meningioangiomatous lesion located in the leptomeninges that projects along the Virchow-Robin spaces into the underlying cortex. The surrounding brain parenchyma demonstrates reactive changes with astrogliosis and microgliosis. An intraparenchymal neoplasm is not seen. Meningioangiomatosis is a rare benign meningovascular hamartomatous condition and usually appears in young patients. |
Meningioangiomatosis is not reportable. It is a cortical lesion which may occur sporadically or in NF2 (neurofibromatosis type 2). It is not listed in ICD-O-3. |
2017 |
|
|
20170031 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion. |
At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease. This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled? |
Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis. The MP/H rules have very clear instructions regarding the word "recurrence." See page 10, specifically A.7., https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/2007_mphrules_manual_08242012.pdf SEER will evaluate the MP/H rules in the upcoming revision. |
2017 |
|
|
20170005 | Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is neoplasm consistent with carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma reportable as a teratoma, NOS, and if yes, what is the histology code? |
Carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma or well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), monodermal teratoma of the testis is reportable. Assign 8240/3 according to the WHO classification for this neoplasm. |
2017 | |
|
|
20170071 | Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion. |
We are seeing the term "incidentaloma" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings. Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes. Is the term "incidentaloma" alone reportable, if the term "tumor" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean "tumor." |
The term "incidentaloma" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term "incidentaloma" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to "a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic. |
2017 |
|
|
20170036 | Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion. |
Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows: Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7 Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7 Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8 Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10 Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores. The prostate-related fields include: Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy |
When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields. Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1 Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2 Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2 Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3 Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3 |
2017 |
An official website of the United States government
