Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031152 | Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description. | An FNA of pancreas is stated as "highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma." The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis. Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20240022 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology: When should the designation of “poorly differentiated” be used to further specify histology for carcinoma, NOS (8010) as undifferentiated carcinoma (8020)? See Discussion. |
The term “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” is listed as related to “undifferentiated carcinoma (NOS)” in the ICD-O 3.2. It is also listed in the Solid Tumor Rules for Urinary Table 2 (Urinary subtypes), Other Sites Table 16 (uterine corpus primaries) and Table 19 (vulvar primaries). Are these the only sites in which one should code “poorly differentiated carcinoma (NOS)” as 8020 (undifferentiated carcinoma)? How is histology coded if the only microscopic confirmation is from a metastatic site showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma” (NOS) or “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” (NOS)? Example 1: Primary pancreatic cancer diagnosed on imaging and confirmed with liver mets core biopsy showing “poorly differentiated carcinoma.” Immunostaining pattern was non-specific. No further workup or treatment was planned. Other Sites - Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) includes undifferentiated carcinoma (8020/3) as a valid histology; however, the synonyms/subtypes/variants do not mention poorly differentiated carcinoma. How should histology be coded for this case? Example 2: Hemicolectomy with cecal tumor final diagnosis of “invasive carcinoma, poorly differentiated” and synoptic summary listing “Histologic type: Invasive carcinoma. Histologic grade: G3 of 4: poorly differentiated.” Colorectal Table 1 (Specific Histologies and Subtypes/Variants) includes undifferentiated adenocarcinoma/carcinoma 8020 as a subtype of adenocarcinoma NOS. There is no mention of poorly differentiated in this context. How should histology be coded for this case? |
Assign code 8020/3 when the histologic type specifically includes the term of poorly differentiated, dedifferentiated, undifferentiated, or anaplastic undifferentiated carcinoma along with carcinoma as terms vary depending on the primary site. When the term poorly differentiated is included in the grade section only of the pathology report or only mentions poorly differentiated carcinoma without further substantiation from a pathology report as in examples 1 and 2, do not use code 8020/3. The histology code 8020/3 and terms may be used for selected primary sites as included in the Solid Tumor Rules, WHO Classification of Tumors series (latest versions), and the Site/Morphology Validation List including Nasal cavity Nasopharynx Salivary glands Urinary sites Colon, rectosigmoid, rectum Esophagus Stomach Gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct Pancreas Thyroid Ovary Uterine corpus Vagina Uterine cervix (also referred to as unclassifiable in WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th ed.) For sites other than those listed, if the diagnosis is poorly differentiated carcinoma, code 8010/3 and poorly differentiated in the grade field. |
N/A | Histology | 2024 |
|
|
20021105 | Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion. | 1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary. 2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3. |
Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy. 1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy. 2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20051138 | Histology/Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndrome synonymous with "therapy related" myelodysplastic syndrome? If so, would "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndome be SEER reportable and coded with the histology 9987/3? | Page 44 of the "Abstracting & Coding Guide for the Hematopoiectic Diseases" lists this histology & behavior with the proper EOD code to use but yet on page 36 it states "Do not accession the following diagnoses coded to 285.0 and lists secondary SA as well as drug-induced SA. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
There is considerable difference between therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and drug-induced sideroblastic anemia (SA).
Therapy-related MDS is the result of irreversible damage to the bone marrow caused by certain kinds of myelotoxic drugs used to treat cancer. Examples are Cytoxan and Etoposide. There is usually a 10+ year delay between the first primary and its treatment and the therapy-related MDS. Therapy-related MDS is not reversible and is reportable as a malignancy. Because the drugs were almost always given to treat a malignancy, therapy-related MDS is almost always a second primary.
Drug-induced SA is not reportable as a malignancy. Drug-induced SA is the result of short term effects of certain drugs on the bone marrow. Drug-induced SA is reversible, as the marrow recovers once the drugs are out of the system.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
N/A | Histology | 2005 |
|
|
20071082 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision. When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer. |
N/A | N/A | 2007 | |
|
|
20200044 | Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia, moderate to severe, reportable and if so, what are the histology and behavior codes? See Discussion. |
Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2? |
Report this case as 8077/2. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this and confirmed it is reportable. Here is some of his rationale. The pathologist's designation as "moderate to severe" indicates there are areas of 2/3 of full thickness epithelial change, so the criteria to report are met. |
N/A | Histology | 2020 |
|
|
20110059 | Histology: How do you code histology for "malignant myopericytoma"? |
Report malignant myopericytoma as 8824/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. |
N/A | Histology | 2011 | |
|
|
20081119 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion. |
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report. Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.) |
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case. The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly." The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2008 |
|
|
20031035 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts? | Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:
I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia. II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.
Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.
In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.
Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
N/A | Histology | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
