Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051140 | CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Breast: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Discussion. | A breast cancer patient had an FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases. Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. This question is answered for EOD in SINQ 20031059. What is the answer for Collaborative Stage? |
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.Include all nodes examined by the pathologist in Regional lymph nodes positive and Regional lymph nodes examined, unless there is disease progression. These fields are cumulative -- record the total number of regional nodes positive and examined during first course of treatment. Preoperative treatment does not affect the coding of these fields. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 95 for number positive and 95 for number examined. For the case examples above, assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07 for both examples. |
2005 |
|
|
20071073 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion. | A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features. The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]. After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523. This advanced concept of a "second pass" through the rules is discussed in an online web training session called "Beyond the basics." Go to the SEER website to view this session http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_advanced.html |
2007 |
|
|
20081026 | MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion. | A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.
Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic. | 2008 |
|
|
20220039 | Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is “squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia” equivalent to a diagnosis of “high grade squamous dysplasia?” See Discussion. |
A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia. Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia? |
Squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia is the same as high grade squamous dysplasia in the conjunctiva and is coded to 8077/2. |
2022 |
|
|
20170018 | MPH Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Does MP/H Rule M7 (diagnosed more than 60 days apart) apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma, or are these further excision of the original diagnosis and the same primary, even when it appears treatment was complete after the initial excision? See Discussion. |
A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary. Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma. In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries. |
Rule M7 pertains to separate tumors. Rule M7 does not apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma. Based on the information provided, it is not clear whether or not the 5/10/16 diagnosis is a separate lesion or the same lesion that was diagnosed earlier. |
2017 |
|
|
20110148 | First course treatment/Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned and how is treatment coded when follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009 is treated with CHOP and a subsequent December 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is treated with chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant? See Discussion. | A follicular lymphoma [9690/3] involving multiple lymph nodes was diagnosed on 12/2/2009. The patient had no bone marrow involvement and was treated with CHOP as first course treatment. In October 2010, the patient was put on maintenance Rituxan but disease progression was noted in November 2010. A biopsy of a mesenteric lymph node in December 2010 showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The patient subsequently had chemotherapy and an autologous bone marrow transplant.
According to the Multiple Primaries Calculator in the Heme DB, the DLBCL is a new primary but the physician calls the diagnosis of DLBCL a transformation from the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M10. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Record the CHOP as the first course of treatment for the follicular lymphoma because this was the only treatment given for the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) prior to the transformation to the acute neoplasm (DLBCL). Record the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant as first course treatment for the DLBCL.
As noted above, follicular lymphoma does transform to DLBCL. This "transformation" is actually a new disease. Follicular lymphoma is a disease in which the lymph nodes have a prominent follicular pattern; DLBCL is a disease with diffuse proliferation of large lymphoid cells. While it is true that follicular lymphoma will transform to DLBCL, this transformation indicates it becomes a different entity.
The DLBCL is coded as a second primary for several reasons: to determine the incidence of follicular lymphomas transforming to DLBCL; survival time can be calculated for the diagnosis of the more aggressive DLBCL; death will be attributed to the DLBCL (for mortality statistics) and not the follicular lymphoma
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2011 |
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20081109 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion. |
A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94. The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary. Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis. Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available. |
2008 |
|
|
20091017 | Primary site--Esophagus: How is primary site coded for a tumor arising in a segment of the esophagus that was reconstructed using a segment of the colon? See Discussion. |
A patient had a ruptured esophagus 25 years ago and had a segment of colon removed and transplanted to serve as esophagus. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with carcinoma in a polyp by endoscopic biopsy of the transplanted 'esophagus'. What is the primary site code? Is this the same site schema to be used for Collaborative staging and surgery coding? |
Code the primary site esophagus, NOS [C159]. Use the surgery codes and collaborative staging schema for esophagus. Document the unusual nature of this case in text fields. |
2009 |
|
|
20200051 | Primary site/Unknown and ill-defined site--Melanoma: What is the primary site for a case of metastatic melanoma with an unknown primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient had posterior cervical lymphadenopathy status post biopsy and subsequent lymph node dissection showed metastatic melanoma in 2018. Workup showed no skin lesions or primary site. Final diagnosis is melanoma of unknown primary (unknown if cutaneous or non-cutaneous). Should C760 be used as the primary site for this case since the histology codes of 8700-8790 are included in the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema in SEER*RSA? |
Code primary site C449. C449 is the default primary site code for melanoma of unknown primary site. C760 should not be assigned for this case. Updates will be made to SEER*RSA to remove the melanoma histology codes from the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema. |
2020 |
An official website of the United States government
