Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a "simple mastectomy" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?
Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].
Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth, DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2, or DFSP with focal myxoid features (2022) reportable for 2021-2022 diagnoses?
Yes. DFSP with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2 are synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). Our expert pathologist also advises that DFSP with focal myxoid features is the same as DFSP, myxoid (8832/3).
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
Histology--Breast: Please confirm the morphology code for a diagnosis of "encapsulated papillary carcinoma" of the breast. Several articles on the internet lead me to believe it is the same as an intracystic carcinoma, code 8504/2 (our case shows no evidence of invasion).
You are correct in coding 8504/2 for this case. Per the 4th Edition WHO Tumors of the Breast, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast is synonymous with intracystic or encysted papillary carcinoma. It is a variant of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
Laterality--Brain and CNS: Can Laterality be coded as 5 (midline) for a sella turcica meningioma (or tuberculum sellae meningioma) when no other statement regarding tumor laterality is documented? See Discussion.
Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable?
You may assign code 5 (Paired site: midline tumor) for laterality of a meningioma of the sella turcica (C700).
The 2022 SEER manual states in Laterality coding instruction 5: Assign Laterality code 5 only when the primary site is C700, C710-C714, C722-C725, C443, C445. Do not assign code 5 to sites not listed in 5.a.
Note that code 9 is for paired sites and there is no information concerning laterality.
Document laterality information in the appropriate text field. Note: Laterality does not factor into the CNS Solid Tumor rules.
Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms.
You may code grade as follows.
Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)
Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)
Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive reportable? See Discussion.
The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.
Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?
Your case is equivalent to encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-invasive (non-invasive EFVPTC) and is not reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021 or later even though it says "carcinoma." That is because the WHO assigned a behavior code of /1 to this entity (8349/1). NIFTP is assigned to the same histology and behavior code.
Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER?
"Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable.
Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion.
A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma.
A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid.
Reportability--Colon: Is a pathologically confirmed "tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia" reportable if clinical diagnosis at the time of the subsequent re-biopsy states "follow-up for colon polyps with ca in situ"? See Discussion.
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade dysplasia is not synonymous with behavior code 2 (in situ). However, the 2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case."
A pathologic diagnosis has priority over a clinical diagnosis. According to the pathologist, this case is not reportable. A re-biopsy is not treatment.
An official website of the United States government
Home