| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031171 | Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description. | In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant? Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered. |
Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable. The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20010154 | Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when there are invasive and in situ components in a tumor, but only the in situ component is graded (e.g., Invasive ductal carcinoma with high grade ductal carcinoma in situ)? | Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. The grade is taken from the invasive component only. | N/A | N/A | 2001 | |
|
|
20031042 | Histology (Pre-2007): How are the following four histologies coded: 1) Adenocarcinoma with focal mucinous adenocarcinoma; 2) Adenocarcinoma with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma, 3) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma, and 4) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma? See Description. | 1. How do we code colon: Adenocarcinoma with focal Mucinous adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3? 2. A lung lesion with predominant adenoca with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3? 3. Mixed infiltrating duct carcinoma and medullary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3? 4. Mixed infil duct ca and focal medulary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
1. 8140/3, Adenocarcinoma. Mucinous has a specific rule (see sinq 20010075): Include the mucinous component only if it is 50% or more of the tumor. "Focal" is not a majority term. 2. 8250/3, Bronchiolo-alveolar adenoca. Code the more specific histology. 3. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma. 4. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | Histology | 2003 |
|
|
20000547 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non-small cell carcinoma, NOS"? See discussion. | Should a non-small cell carcinoma histology be assumed to be a large cell carcinoma [8031/3] or should the histology be coded to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3]? | For tumor diagnosed 2001-2006: Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma].
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | Histology | 2000 |
|
|
20091126 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. | Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement. | There are two primaries according to the information provided.
1. VAIN III March 2001. 2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease. |
N/A | N/A | 2009 |
|
|
20021132 | EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease. Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD: 1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement. 2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive. 3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process. If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021137 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Soft Tissue: Does SEER agree that one primary of the soft tissues of pelvis [C49.5] should be reported when a pathologic diagnosis for bilateral herniorrhaphies is "right and left inguinal hernias with low grade spindle cell sarcoma"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. This is one primary and should be coded to C49.5 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of pelvis]. According to Rule A in ICD-O-3, the type of tumor ("sarcoma") indicates origin from a particular tissue, resulting in the primary site code of C49.5 [Inguinal region, NOS] for this sarcoma.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20160050 | Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion. |
The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014. |
WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term "mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia" replaced the term "mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
|
N/A | N/A | 2016 |
|
|
20041005 | EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of "necrotic masses, NOS" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description. | Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: "In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4" mass." No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code. | N/A | N/A | 2004 |
|
|
20051038 | First Course Treatment--Prostatic Urethra: Is Lupron coded for a papillary carcinoma of the prostatic urethra that is treated with a TUR with fulguration and beam radiation even though the prostate biopsies are negative? | Do not code lupron as treatment for a primary in the prostatic urethra. | N/A | First course treatment | 2005 |
Home
