Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160038 | Birthplace/Place of birth, country: For patients originally born in a country that is currently listed as "historic only", where the original birth country now has a one-to-many relationship with the current country, how should the reported original birthplace be coded? (Example: Yugoslavia) |
Assign code for Europe, NOS (ZZE) for Yugoslavia, NOS, without further information. |
2016 | |
|
|
20150005 | Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma |
Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150055 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this 2 primaries? In 2011, a patient had a spinal mass biopsied positive for DLBCL and follicular lymphoma. The heme rules make this one primary coded as DLBCL. Patient had 2 rounds of chemo, but in 2014, he had a recurrent tumor in the same location. The 2014 biopsy was follicular lymphoma. Is this a new primary -- conversion of acute to chronic after treatment? Or is it the same, since FL was diagnosed in the original specimen? |
Rule M13 applies, abstract as two primaries. Since both DLBCL and FL were present in 2011, rule M2 does not fit -- not a single histology. Rule M13 reflects the situation in this case much better: an acute neoplasm which was treated and a chronic neoplasm diagnosed later. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150027 | Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)? |
Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection. |
2015 |
|
|
20150018 | First course of treatment--Immunotherapy: Should Rituxan be coded to immunotherapy? See discussion. |
Is the instruction under #4.b. on page 114 of the 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual incorrect? It says to code Rituxan as chemotherapy. |
Rituxan changed categories from chemotherapy to a biologic therapy/Immunotherapy agent effective with cases diagnosed January 1, 2013. See page 150 or page 164 in the 2015 SEER manual. The instruction in the 2014 SEER manual was incorrect regarding Rituxan. |
2015 |
|
|
20150034 | MP/H/Histology/neuroendocrine : How should the following histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation be coded?
1. Bladder - Invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
2. Nasopharnyx - Undifferentiated nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
3. Ductal carcinoma in situ (with neuroendocrine features) cribriform and solid patterns
See discussion. |
We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules? |
The term neuroendocrine is often included with other histologies and usually means that neuroendocrine cells are present but not neuroendocrine tumor.
1. If the neuroendocrine cells are stated to be either small cell or large cell, code that histology; however, neuroendocrine, NOS mixed with urothelial does not have an applicable mixed code. Code histology to 8120.
2. Code histology to squamous cell carcinoma, nonkeratinizing, NOS (8072/3). The neuroendocrine component is not specified as either small cell or large cell.
3. Code to 8523/2 per MP/H Rule H6 as intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma present.
Note that while neuroendocrine differentiation can be identified, it seems to have no prognostic implications. We have consulted with our site specific Subject Matter Experts on how best to capture neuroendocrine, NOS when combined with other histologies. These instructions will be included in the revision of the MP/H rules including the wording of MP/H breast rule H6. |
2015 |
|
|
20150047 | Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion. |
The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic? |
Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer. |
2015 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20150008 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is idiopathic hypereosinophilia reportable? Must the diagnosis include the word 'syndrome'? |
Idiopathic hypereosinophilia is not reportable.
Hypereosinophilic syndrome is a different entity and is a synonym for chronic eosinophilic leukemia. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
