Behavior/Summary Stage 2018--Colon: What is the correct behavior and Summary Stage for a case of intramucosal adenocarcinoma arising in tubular adenoma? AJCC states this is Tis, though SEER Summary Stagie states this is Localized (code 1). The histology is 8140/2 (adenocarcinoma in situ), but the SEER Summary Stage is Locallized.
Intramucosal carcinoma of the colon is assigned behavior code of /3. Intramucosal is not the same as in situ in terms of behavior. Behavior and staging are separate concepts, although there is some overlap. Use the instructions for coding behavior to code this field. Do not use stage to determine behavior in this case.
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion; however, for purposes of AJCC staging, assign Tis for the stage.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case reportable in which the pathology report is negative for plasmacytoma but a subsequent physician's clinical diagnosis is plasmacytoma?
This case is reportable if the patient was treated for plasmacytoma. When the physician calls the case plasmacytoma and treats the patient accordingly, report the case.
See Case Reportability Instructions #6: Report the case when there is a clinical diagnosis (physician's statement) of a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.
Note 1: The clinical diagnosis may be a final diagnosis found within the medical record or recorded on a scan (CT, MRI for example)
Note 2: Report the case even if the diagnostic tests are equivocal. A number of hematopoietic neoplasms are "diagnoses of exclusion" in which the diagnostic tests are equivocal and the physician makes the clinical diagnosis based on the equivocal tests and the clinical picture. See the Heme DB for definitive diagnostic methods for the specific neoplasm being abstracted.
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.
Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma?
In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004.
Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate diagnosed in 2017 reportable? Was this rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) missed in Casefinding? If reportable, what is the histology code?
Carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate is reportable. Code to SCC, NOS (8070/3). Use text fields to record the details.
While WHO recognizes carcinoma cuniculatum to be a new variant of oral cancer, it has not proposed a new ICD-O code for this neoplasm.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?
1) Stricture of the common bile duct
2) Common bile duct is narrowed
3) Common bile duct is obstructed
4) Common bile duct dilation
5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct
6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.
Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a left tonsil biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and a cervical lymph node biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma and grade 3 follicular lymphoma (9699 and 9698)?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Abstract two primaries: The first is a marginal zone lymphoma of tonsil and the second is a follicular lymphoma of cervical lymph node. According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases (the tri-fold chart), marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and follicular lymphoma (9698) are different primaries.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate.
Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging?
For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details.
An official website of the United States government
Home