Histology--Pancreas: What is the difference between pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) [8240/3] and the new ICD-O-3 terms pancreatic endocrine tumor, benign [8150/0] and pancreatic endocrine tumor, malignant [8150/3]? See Discussion.
SEER Inquiry 20120035 discusses the reportability of pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) tumors.
The difference is that 8150 is for islet cell tumors. The preferred name was changed by WHO/IARC to reflect the current language used by pathologists to describe islet cell tumors [8150].
The 8240 histology code added the neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1, low or well differentiated terms to the carcinoid ICD-O name.
Islet cell tumors are more aggressive than the pancreatic NET tumors. Treatment and prognosis are determined by the histologic type. While the histology code 8150 is not new, the histology name has been updated.
Reportability--Colon: Is a pathologically confirmed "tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia" reportable if clinical diagnosis at the time of the subsequent re-biopsy states "follow-up for colon polyps with ca in situ"? See Discussion.
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade dysplasia is not synonymous with behavior code 2 (in situ). However, the 2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case."
A pathologic diagnosis has priority over a clinical diagnosis. According to the pathologist, this case is not reportable. A re-biopsy is not treatment.
Grade: Can FIGO grade be used to code Grade/Differentiation? See Discussion.
SINQ 20020059 says not to use FIGO grade to code differentiation. It also says SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 sixth digit differentiation codes accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade. What is the result of the evaluation? Any new information regarding FIGO grade?
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.Do not code FIGO grade in the grade field. The conversion from a three-grade system to a four-grade system does not work for FIGO grade three. Since FIGO G3 includes both Poorly differentiated and undifferentiated, it cannot be converted.
FIGO grade may be captured in a CS site specific factor in the future.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What is the histology code for a breast tumor that is ductal ca with focal squamous differentiation? See Discussion.
SINQ 20021062 states for cases Dx'd prior to 2007, use 8570. Is 8570 also used when the squamous differentiation is focal?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8500 [duct carcinoma]. Ignore histologies described as "focal," "focus," or "foci." This instruction will be added to the histology rules in the upcoming revision of the MP/H manual.
Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion.
SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.
First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion.
SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15
The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue.
Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.
When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.
Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when biopsies of the left and right tonsils show diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and there is no other evidence of involvement? See Discussion.
Scans are negative for lymphadenopathy and the bone marrow biopsy was benign. Radiation Oncology staged this as localized bilateral tonsil primary lymphoma.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] of bilateral tonsils. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. Note 1 for Rule M2 states bilateral involvement of lymph nodes and/or organs is still a single primary.
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.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.
Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.
The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].
MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.
However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.
Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.
An official website of the United States government
Home