SEER Inquiry System - Search

1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?

2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?

3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.

1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?)

2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?)

3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?)

1) no smooth muscle invasion

2) no muscle invasion

3) without muscle invasion

4) no invasion of muscularis propria

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.

2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.

3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.

4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.

According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma

Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).

Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the "only one" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.

Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?

M10 does not apply.

According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.

1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.

2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).

1. Grade of infiltrating carcinoma 1) Nuclear grade low; 2) Histological grade-intermediate; 3) Mitotic rate-low, 4) BR score 4.

2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.

3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8).

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?

1. If the fibrosarcoma occurs after DFP, and is called metastatic, is it a recurrence or is it a new primary? Example: Pt diagnosed in 7/05 with a high grade fibrosarcoma arising in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The path indicated "The presence of high grade fibrosarcoma, the extent of the tumor necrosis and the mitotic rate are all adverse prognostic findings that indicate a significant risk for mets." The patient had a recurrence in 8/06 called a low grade fibrosarcoma mets from prev." The DFP code is 8832/3 and a fibrosarcoma code is 8810/3. Our pathologist feels that the fibrosarcoma is a more aggressive tumor so should the case be coded to the 8810/3.

2. If DFSP has areas of fibrosarcoma, should it be coded to the latter because it is more aggressive? Example: Skin and subcutaneous tissue reads: Low grade sarcoma - tumor extends to margin. Comment: "Although the predominant pattern of this tumor is consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, focal presence of hypercellularity and increased mitotic figures suggest transformation to Grade I fibrosarcoma. This progression, although focal, carries an increased risk of mets over classic DFSP. Code to 8810/31?