MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular primary with a combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See discussion.
Patient had a radical orchiectomy with the final diagnosis of "Mixed germ cell tumor with the following features -- histologic type: Mixed germ cell tumor (teratoma 50%, yolk sac tumor 25%, and embryonal 25%)."
Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs.
Primary Site--Stomach: How do I code the primary site when the operative report and pathology report state that the tumor site is incisura of the stomach?
Assign C163. Incisura, incisura angularis, gastric angular notch, angular incisure of stomach all refer to the sharp angular depression in the lesser curvature of the stomach at the junction of the body with the pyloric canal. See Gastric angular notch in #12 on page 76 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf. See also the SEER training website, #12 on the illustration corresponds to the angular notch, http://training.seer.cancer.gov/ugi/anatomy/stomach.html. We will correct the key for this illustration.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion.
We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories
M - Possible non-HCC malignancy
1 - Definitely Benign
2 - Probably Benign
3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC
4 - Probably HCC
5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?
Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy.
Reportability--Breast: Is mammary fibromatosis reportable and if so, what histology code is assigned? See discussion.
The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.
Mammary fibromatosis is not reportable. The WHO classification for breast tumors assigns mammary fibromatosis a behavior code of /1. According to WHO, mammary fibromatosis "is a locally infiltrative lesion without metastatic potential…"
MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma?
Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0).
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.
1) Invasive lobular carcinoma
2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features
See discussion.
Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?
Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.
Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?
Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.
Reportability--Melanoma: Please explain how a CTR is to interpret the guideline in the MP/H rules (Cutaneous Melanoma): Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Is this to mean that evolving melanoma in situ is not reportable? Or should we follow the guidelines in SEER Question 20130022 that states the reportability terms for melanoma and melanoma in situ.
Follow the guidelines in SINQ 20130022 for now. When the MP/H rules are revised, new instructions will be implemented.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion.
It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.
This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.
Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.
Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.
An official website of the United States government
Home