Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150051 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is schwannoma of the extracranial part of a cranial nerve reportable? Some cranial nerves, like facial nerve, have intracranial and extracranial branches. |
An extracranial schwannoma is not reportable. The schwannoma must arise on the intracranial part of the nerve to be reportable. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150050 | Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion. |
Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2? |
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2). Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2). |
2015 |
|
|
20150009 | Multiple Primaries/Behavior--Lung: When a patient has an invasive lung primary, how do in situ tumors of the lung affect the determination of multiple primaries? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)? |
Most often when the invasive tumor and the in situ component are in the same lung and are the same histology, rule M12 (example 3) applies and this is a single primary. If the first wedge resection included part of the tumor and the in situ was not separate from the tumor, it is a single primary. We suspect that the margins were positive on the first wedge specimen which prompted the second wedge resection where the in situ was found. In addition, terminology for lung malignancies is undergoing change: what was called BAC (invasive) is now called adenocarcinoma in situ. |
2015 |
|
|
20150040 | Surgery of Primary Site--Pleura: How is this field coded if the patient underwent an exploratory thoracotomy with partial decortication that excised some, but not all, of the pleural mesothelioma tumors? See Discussion. |
This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)? |
Read the operative report and the pathology report and assign the surgery code that best represents the extent of the surgery. In this case, code 30 seems most appropriate. Do not assign the surgery code based only on the name of the procedure; use all information available to chose the most representative code. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20150049 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable? |
Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor. |
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 |
|
|
20150026 | First course treatment--Breast: When Lupron is given as cancer-directed treatment for metastatic breast cancer, should it be coded as Hormone Therapy or Other Therapy? See Discussion. |
Per the SEER*Rx Database, Lupron is coded as Other Therapy for breast cancer until such time that it receives FDA approval. However, SINQ 20021042 states Lupron should be coded as Hormone Therapy when given as cancer-directed therapy. These two sources contradict each other.
Information regarding hormone therapy for breast cancer in both the SEER*Rx Database and the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Topics website (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/breast-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet) seem to indicate that the SINQ answer is the correct choice. The NCI Cancer Topics website states that Lupron acts to block ovarian function and is an example of an ovarian suppression drug that has been approved by the FDA. The SEER*Rx Database Remarks section states that a combination of letrozole and leuprolide (Lupron) "is considered standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer and is sometimes used for treatment of early stage breast cancer." But the Remarks go on to state that Lupron should be coded as Other Therapy until it receives FDA approval.
It is unclear how to code Lupron for breast cancers when the NCI website indicates that it is standard treatment while the SEER*Rx Database states both that it is and that it is not standard treatment. |
Code Lupron given for breast cancer in the "Other" treatment field using code 6 (other-unproven). Lupron is still not an approved hormone treatment for breast cancer and should not be coded in the hormone field.
|
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
