Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160024 | 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.
See also SINQ 200120078 and 20110069. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160028 | MP/H/Histology--Sarcoma: How should Ewing Sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) be coded for a 2012 case? See Discussion. |
SEER SINQ 20031051 applies to cases diagnosed before 2007 and advises: Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. |
Apply 2007 MP/H rule H6 and assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code that reflects PNET (9364/3). According to the WHO Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone, though Ewing sarcoma ICD-O-3 code is 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma with a higher degree of neuroectodermal differentiation present is classically termed peripheral neuroectodermal tumors (PNET). WHO does not offer guidance how to classify tumors stated to be Ewing sarcoma PNET.
Histology code 9364/3 is assigned for a Ewing/PNET that arises outside of the brain/CNS. Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PPNET) are Ewing family tumors.
Histology code 9473/3 (PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, central primitive neuroectodermal tumor, or supratentorial PNET) is only used for tumors arising inside the brain/CNS. |
2016 |
|
|
20160076 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)? |
The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160035 | Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable? |
Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160061 | Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.
|
A segmental resection pathology report states "benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor." The diagnosis comment further states, "the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor." This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.
The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term "benign" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable? |
This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses "benign" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable. |
2016 |
|
|
20160065 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type described as adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous which involves multiple lung tumors present in a single lobe? See Discussion. |
The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated. |
Assign histology code 8254/3.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not include coding guidelines for mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors. Lung Table 1 (in the Terms and Definitions, pages 37-38, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf ) is very specific about which histologies can be coded to mixed adenocarcinoma (8255/3). Mucinous is not included per the note at the end of Table 1. Per WHO 3rd and 4th Ed Tumors of the Lung, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors of the lung are classified as 8254/3. Mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma is a synonym for BAC, mucinous and non-mucinous. |
2016 |
|
|
20160057 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants? |
Assign 8523/3.
The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160078 | First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases? |
Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section. Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160044 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What is the appropriate histology code for a final diagnosis of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and/or pleomorphic sarcoma, undifferentiated? See Discussion. |
Does the Other Sites MP/H Rule H17 apply in this case, which results in coding the higher histology 8805/3 (undifferentiated sarcoma)? Or does the "undifferentiated" statement only refer to grade, which results in coding histology to 8802/3 (pleomorphic sarcoma)? |
Assign 8802/34 to pleomorphic cell sarcoma/undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Pleomorphic is more important than undifferentiated when choosing the histology code in this case. Undifferentiated can be captured in the grade code. |
2016 |
|
|
20160008 | 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. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
