System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/19/2024 00:27 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20150044

Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?"  See discussion.

Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants

Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.

2015
20150062

Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.

1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)

2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2)

The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).

When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder.

Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/   Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.

1. Assign grade code 2

2. Assign grade code 4

See the note below the table in instruction #7.

2015
20150057

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?

Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.

The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.

2015
20150019

Reportability/Histology--Pancreas:  Is well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (M8240/3) as stated on a pathology report reportable or can the clinical information be used as an adjunct to the path report, which further states the specific type of neuroendocrine tumor is an Insulinoma, therefore, NOT reportable (M8151/0)? See discussion.

The diagnosis date is 2/24/14.  The pathology report of the pancreas shows: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), low grade (WHO G1 of 3). Addendum: Ki-67 confirms low grade of pancreatic endocrine tumor (less than 2% Ki-67/MIB-1 index). Chromogranin confirms the endocrine nature of the tumor. The Pre and Post Op Diagnosis is pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor consistent with insulinoma. AJCC Stage as noted on path report: pT1, pNX, pM.

The physician states: The patient has a well-documented insulinoma. Biochemistries confirmed the disease and it is localized in the tail of the pancreas.

The issue with NETs is that pathology report reflects what is seen or what is quantified under the microscope; often, there is a specimen without the accompanying medical history and clinical signs. Many of these NETs are specified on the basis of the hormone, as usually measured in the blood, that is overproduced, something not seen microscopically. All of the islet cell tumors are NETs. The insulinoma in the example above is a well-differentiated NET that is causing insulin to be over-produced. Thus, the diagnoses are not discordant; insulinoma is a more specific NET.

When the pathology diagnosis is a neuroendocrine tumor (/3) and the clinical diagnosis is an insulinoma (/0), report the case.  Although ICD-O-3 classifies insulinoma as /0, the most recent WHO classification lists it as /3. The pathologist and physicians for this case are likely guided by the WHO classification and as a result, would view both the NET diagnosis and the insulinoma diagnosis as malignant. You could report this case as 8240/3 or 8151/3.

2015
20150060

Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion.

A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems.

Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants.

2015
20150066

Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.

 

Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade

Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm

Assign 8201/2 for this case.

MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.

Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf

The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).

Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

2015
20150046

Reportability--Appendix:  Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination?  See discussion.

Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity.

 2015
20150029

First course treatment/Hormone Therapy--Lung: How is this field coded when the patient receives Prednisone for a metastatic lung adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.

The SEER*Rx Database, Prednisone Primary Site indicates "Prednisone is used to treat multiple sites and histologies." The Remarks information states, "Prednisone may be coded as treatment (hormonal) for all sites and histologies. It is most often used as part of a drug regimen." While it is clear that Prednisone is coded as hormone therapy when administered as part of a drug regimen like CHOP, how is Prednisone coded when given outside of a drug regimen? Also, how is Prednisone coded for cancer-directed treatment of a metastatic lung primary? The NCI's PDQ does not list hormone therapy as cancer-directed treatment for a Stage IV lung adenocarcinoma.

In our specific case, Prednisone was started just after diagnosis, and before the completion of work-up proving distant metastasis. Often, Prednisone (or another hormone agent) is given as an ancillary treatment for the symptoms associated with the malignancy, and not as cancer-directed treatment.

 

Do not code Prednisone when it is given for symptoms. In most cases when Prednisone is given by iteself, not as part of a drug regimen, it does not affect the cancer and would not be coded as treatment.

2015
20150023

MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: When is 8341/3, papillary microcarcinoma coded? The code description in ICD-O-3 is followed by (C739), yet there are two SINQ answers that tell us specifically to not use this code for thyroid primaries. Even the first revision of ICD-O-3 still carries the (C739) as part of this code, which goes against SINQ 20110027 and 20081127.

Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid and thereby should be coded to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct. This information will be included in the upcoming revisions to the MP/H manual.                        

2015
20150015

Primary Site--Testis:  What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11?  See discussion.

Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis?

Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case.

2015