SEER Inquiry System - Search

Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3.

Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.

This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?

Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: "mucinous carcinoma, see comment". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states "histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma".

If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.'

Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0?

Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, "Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.

When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries.

Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary.

My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor.

Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped "involved" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.

Right Breast

06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.

09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.

10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS

Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.

Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.

Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).

The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.

Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.

None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?

To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)?