Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160029 | Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion. |
We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct? |
I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions. |
2016 |
|
|
20160068 | 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. |
2016 |
|
|
20160021 | 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. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160049 | Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast. |
Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160020 | Reportability/Histology-Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160033 | First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion. |
As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to "radiation therapy," chemoembolization is coded to "chemotherapy," and microwave ablation code to "other." Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code "16"? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation. |
According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery. For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation). |
2016 |
|
|
20160039 | First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: If a procedure stated to be an "excisional biopsy" doesn't grossly remove the tumor, should Surgery of Primary Site be coded as an excisional biopsy? See Discussion for example. |
Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?
The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the "excisional biopsy" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed. |
Do not record this excisional biopsy as surgery because there was residual macroscopic tumor. See Note 1 under #4 on page 130 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf |
2016 |
|
|
20160040 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a final diagnosis of "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" (NIFTP) reportable when the diagnosis comment states this tumor was historically classified as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The term "non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis. |
As of January 1, 2021 Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) C739 is no longer reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward. See the ICD-O-3.2 material on the NAACCR website,https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/#1582820761121-27c484fc-46a7 _____________________________________________ Answer for cases diagnosed 1-1-2017 to 12/31/2020 Report NIFTP and assign ICD-O-3 morphology code 8343/2. See the NAACCR document, page 3, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/What-You-Need-to-Know-for-2017.pdf |
2016 |
|
|
20150011 | Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion. |
There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.
1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction? 2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction? 3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction? |
Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.
1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction 2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction 3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction |
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 |
An official website of the United States government
