Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.
Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term "malignant" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to "malignant" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being "very rare". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma
Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma.
MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.
Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.
Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded given that a literature search indicates that this is a distinct subtype of adenocarcinoma of the lung with poor prognosis?
Code the histology to 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. An expert pathologist states that the WHO notes micropapillary to be a pattern seen in papillary carcinomas, but does not specify it as a separate histologic type.
Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?
Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.
Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of "infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: "Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else."
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.
EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for "adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS].
CS Extension--Lung: If only a "single" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are "multiple" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.
An official website of the United States government
Home