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.
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
Primary Site--Skin: Should cutaneous leiomyosarcoma be coded to primary skin of site (C44_) or soft tissue (C49_)?
Code cutanteous leiomyosarcoma to skin. Leiomyosarcoma can originate in the smooth muscle of the dermis. The WHO classification designates this as cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. The major portion of the tumor is in the dermis, although subcutaneous extension is present in some cases.
Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;".
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: What is the histology code for salivary duct carcinoma of parotid gland?
Code salivary duct carcinoma to invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3). Salivary duct carcinoma is an aggressive adenocarcinoma which resembles high-grade breast ductal carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Head & Neck.
Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you.
Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
First course treatment/Chemotherapy/Drug category: Instructions in SEER*Rx state that Ibrance should be coded as chemotherapy. They also state that it is an endocrine-based therapy. Local physicians refer to Ibrance as hormone therapy. Please clarify.
For cancer registry data collection, follow the instructions in SEER*Rx. It is important for all data collection to be consistent for reporting of cancer information.
Per the FDA: Ibrance is a chemotheraputic agent which was approved for use WITH Letrozole. Letrozole is a hormonal drug which may be why the physicians are stating the patient is receiving hormones. Ibrance should not be given alone to treat breast cancer. This drug will not be changing categories in SEER*Rx.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home