Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150015 | Primary Site--Testis: What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11? See discussion. |
Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis? |
Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case. |
2015 |
|
|
20110043 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion. | Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.
Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS. |
Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen. | 2011 |
|
|
20160074 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for a breast primary with resection final diagnosis of "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features?" See Discussion. |
Should the histology for "Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features" be coded to 8500 (Ductal carcinoma, NOS) or 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation)? |
Code the histology to 8574/3 for Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features.
Ductal carcinoma is also called "invasive breast carcinoma of no special type." WHO classifies Invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation as 8574/3. |
2016 |
|
|
20200079 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Should the updated note for optic nerve glioma be included in both the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves, Note 6, and the Non-Malignant CNS Tumors, Note 5? See Discussion. |
Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)? This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant. This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales. |
The 2022 Solid Tumor Update will include a new note in the Terms & Definitions, Introduction section that will state: See the Non-malignant CNS rules when the primary site is optic nerve and the diagnosis is either optic glioma or pilocytic astrocytoma. The behavior is non-malignant and coded 9421/1. |
2020 |
|
|
20120008 | MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient was diagnosed with ovarian serous carcinoma four years ago and currently has sacral and pelvic masses positive for serous carcinoma on biopsy? Should this be disease progression or a new primary? See Discussion. |
Should this be a new primary per the MP/H Rules (Other Sites, Rule M10) because the diagnoses were made more than one year apart? Or is the new disease metastasis? The pathologist did not compare the subsequent mass biopsies with the original pathology. Is a pathologist's comparison of slides the only criteria for determining recurrent disease? This case seems to fit the definition of metastatic disease rather than a recurrence, and therefore would not be a new primary. |
Accession a single primary, the original ovarian serous carcinoma. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases. Metastases: When cancer cells appear in other nodes or organs that are not the primary site they are metastatic cells. Discontinuous (separate from the primary tumor) masses or cells in regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, or distant sites are always metastases. In this case, the sacral and pelvic masses are distant metastases. The pathologist does not have to compare cells to the original tumor slides; the discontinuous tumor mass/cells in any site other than the primary site are metastases. Recurrence: For a disease to recur there are several criteria that must be met. First and most important, the patient must have had a disease-free interval (a tumor cannot recur if it has always been present). The other criteria are: the "new tumor" has to occur in the original primary site, it must be the same histology as the original tumor, AND must meet the timing requirements in the MPH rules for that organ/site. |
2012 |
|
|
20031119 | EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description. | Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.
Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology). |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node. | 2003 |
|
|
20180069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion. |
Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade. |
There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior. The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present. |
2018 |
|
|
20210015 | Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion. |
Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia). |
The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease. . |
2021 |
|
|
20170034 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Would you code a unilateral breast simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and AlloDerm or an acellular dermal matrix as Code 45, Reconstruction with Implant, or Code 46, Reconstruction with Combined Tissue and Implant? See Discussion. |
Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as "Tissue' as it also "provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant? |
Assign code 43 for a simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm. The tissue expander indicates preparation for reconstruction. The acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm is not coded because, while they often accompany an implant procedure, they are not the principle element of reconstructive procedures. The principle elements would be tissue from the patient and/or prosthetics (e.g., gel implants). |
2017 |
|
|
20180022 | Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion. |
Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area. |
Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
