Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140084 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma. |
Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140062 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)? |
Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this. |
2014 |
|
|
20140034 | Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.
The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix? |
The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way "metastases" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.
Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix. |
2014 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
|
|
20140063 | MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion. |
The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.
The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases? |
When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.
A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version. |
2014 |
|
|
20140021 | Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable? | Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable. | 2014 | |
|
|
20140078 | Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion. |
Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure. |
Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen. |
2014 |
|
|
20140025 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia" (9831/3) coded as "5 T-cell" instead of "9" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since "T-cell" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to "5"? |
Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia." The Heme DB grade instruction states "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.
The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis |
2014 | |
|
|
20140031 | MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis? |
Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.
The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.
It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140079 | Laterality: Why is a code 5 for laterality midline only allowed for certain sites of brain and skin? I have a nasal cavity tumor and the path report specifically says "Tumor laterality: midline". What is the correct laterality code here? |
Assign laterality code 9 for midline nasal cavity tumor. We will investigate this issue further. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
