Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20150043 | Seq no-central--Brain and CNS: How should subsequent tumors be sequenced when the patient has a history of a brain tumor, with no information on the behavior of the brain tumor? According to the sequencing rules, it appears some assumption must be made regarding the behavior of the brain tumor. |
Sequence the brain tumor in the 60-87 series when you do not know the behavior. If you have reason to believe the brain tumor was malignant, sequence it in the 00-59 series. |
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 | |
|
|
20150021 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is histology coded for an "endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma with transformation to mucinous carcinoma"? See Discussion. |
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms "mucin-producing" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)? |
Assign 8480/3.
There is no mixed ICD-O-3 code for EMPSCG. Both histologies are in the mucinous family: mucinous adenocarcinoma (8480/3) and sweat gland carcinoma (8400/3). Apply Other sites rule H17 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8480/3).
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) is a rare low-grade sweat gland carcinoma with a strong predilection to the eyelid region. It is histologically analogous to endocrine ductal carcinoma/solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and is characterized by a multinodular solid cystic mucinous tumor with immunoreactivity to neuroendocrine markers. Only 20 cases of this unusual tumor have been reported. |
2015 |
|
|
20150016 | Reportability--Stomach: Is a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the stomach reportable? |
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3. |
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 |
|
|
20150061 | Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted. See discussion. |
The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ. Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3): 161-169 |
Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf |
2015 |
|
|
20150042 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is the surgery code 42 or 52? Does it matter that the procedure states no axillary LN, but the pathology found 2 additional LN? See discussion.
|
Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2) |
Assign surgery of primary site code 42. It is possible to obtain lymph nodes in a mastectomy specimen without an axillary dissection. Remember to capture the excised lymph nodes in the scope of lymph node surgery field. |
2015 |
|
|
20150003 | Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ). |
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
|
2015 | |
|
|
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 |
An official website of the United States government
