Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100066 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned if two tumors are present in the same breast, a 1.7 cm colloid carcinoma and a 1.5 cm colloid carcinoma with infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion. | If a patient has two masses in the same breast with different histology codes and different sizes, should this be accessioned as two primaries? Or should this be a single primary based on the largest tumor size or numerically higher histology code?
|
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract this case as two primaries. Mucinous/colloid carcinoma of the breast is rare. The first tumor describes (1.7 cm) fits this criteria because the pathologist simply says mucinous carcinoma. The diagnostic criteria for mucinous carcinoma is that pools of extracellular mucin make up at least 1/3 of the volume throughout the tumor mass. If focal areas are not at least 33% mucinous, the designation is a mixed mucinous/ductal. That fits the second tumor (1.5 cm).
For this case, you must get the histology codes for both tumors in order to use the Multiple Primary rules. Per H14 the first tumor is coded mucinous carcinoma [8480/3]. Per H17 the second tumor is coded duct carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma [8523/3]. Now go to the MP rules. Per M12 abstract this case as multiple primaries because the ICD-O-3 histology codes are different at the second and third digit. |
2010 |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
|
|
20130023 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion. |
If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules? |
The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720. |
2013 |
|
|
20010097 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion. | If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. " |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, 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. |
2001 |
|
|
20000839 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Does the rule in the 3rd Edition of the SEER Program Code Manual apply to cases diagnosed before 1998 that states if there are two separate carcinomas in the thyroid, one papillary and the other follicular, it is one primary and coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary and follicular carcinoma]? See discussion. |
If the rule applies to cases diagnosed before 1998, does SEER plan to ask that cases diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded? |
The rule applies to tumors diagnosed 1998-2006. The rule is not retroactive. At this time, SEER does not plan to ask that tumors diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded. 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20200033 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primary tumors should be abstracted for a 2018 breast excision with a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0.7 cm) with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present as discontinuous foci, spanning 12 cm? See Discussion. |
If the term discontinuous foci means separate tumors, then rule M14 would apply making these multiple reportable tumors. |
Abstract two primaries, invasive mucinous and DCIS, using 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast, M14, as the discontinuous foci are separate tumors in this example and the histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the rules. |
2020 |
|
|
20020035 | First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion. |
If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"? |
Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of "no disease" and all treatment fields coded to "no treatment" is allowable. |
2002 |
|
|
20240052 | Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland be accessioned as a reportable, behavior /1, CNS neoplasm? See Discussion. |
Imaging identified a mass involving the hypothalamus and pituitary gland and excision of the mass proved “histiocytosis.” The case was extensively reviewed, and the physician notes this patient has a pituitary tumor that is a “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis,” or a “non-LCH histiocytic neoplasm.” There is no histology for histiocytosis (NOS) or non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, this does appear to be a non-malignant histiocytic neoplasm. If this were a Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm in the CNS it would be reportable. Should this non-Langerhans cell histiocytic neoplasm also be accessioned as a reportable CNS neoplasm? If so, how is the histology coded? |
Report this case as a pituitary tumor (8000/1) based on the information provided. This is the best choice as no specific histology code exists for this generic term “non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis” in ICD-O-3.2, WHO Classification of CNS Tumors, 5th ed., and WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed. Be sure to double-check the behavior code of the tumor. Histiocytosis can be benign, borderline, or malignant. There was no mention of the behavior so we defaulted to uncertain behavior for this case. |
2024 |
|
|
20180108 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology of a lung mass with a CT-directed fine needle aspirate "positive for malignancy, favor squamous cell carcinoma. See Discussion. |
Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3? |
Code histology to SCC. The lung rules were updated 10/12/2018 to include clarification on using ambiguous terminology to code histology. See page 32. Note 2: Histology described by ambiguous terminology is coded when a case is * Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.) * Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term Your case meets both of these criteria so code histology to SCC. |
2018 |
|
|
20250012 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded and which H Rule applies for a lung adenocarcinoma when the greatest percentage of the adenocarcinoma is stated to be, "solid; complex glands (cribriform and fused glands) (50%)"? See Discussion. |
In 01/2023, right lower lobectomy final diagnosis proved a single adenocarcinoma tumor with the histological patterns described as acinar (20%), papillary (30%) and solid; complex glands (cribriform and fused glands) (50%). There is no H Rule applicable to a complex glandular pattern adenocarcinoma. Is this equivalent to a solid predominant adenocarcinoma (8230) per Rule H7? Or is the predominant adenocarcinoma a mixed subtype coded as 8255 per Rule H9? |
Histology code 8255/3 best identifies this histology. Complex glands in lung tumors are often associated with a poor prognosis and represent a high-grade pattern in lung cancer grading systems. This histology is not currently recognized as a variant by WHO. |
2025 |
An official website of the United States government
