Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify.
According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable.
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'"
Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix.
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.
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
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.
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).
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;".
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" is reportable? See discussion.
The MRI states "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" but does not include "dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum"; is this the same as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)"?
"Lhermitte-Duclos disease" alone can be interpreted as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)" and reportable. The WHO classification for CNS tumors lists this entity as "Dysplastic gangliocytoma of the cerebellum (Lhermitte-Duclos disease)" signifying that the terms are used synonymously.
Reportability--Skin: Is low grade trichoblastic carcinoma, with a small focus of high grade carcinoma of the scalp reportable? See discussion.
Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.
Trichoblastic carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. The WHO classification lists trichoblastic carcinoma as a synonym for basal cell carcinoma, 8090/3. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf.
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.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.
Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the "pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.
Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later
Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home