Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a skull tumor schwannoma an intracranial reportable benign tumor if the physician states it arose in the occipital nerve?
No. These schwannomas are not intracranial and therefore, are not reportable to SEER. The occipital nerve is not one of the 12 intracranial nerves (i.e., Abducens, Auditory (vestibulocochlear), Facial, Glossopharyngeal, Hypoglossal, Oculomotor, Olfactory, Optic, Spinal Accessory, Trigeminal, Trochlear, and Vagus).
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.
The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.
Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you.
Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?
According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Would the simultaneously occurring histologies of "high grade ductal carcinoma in situ with micro invasion" and "keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma" be coded as two primaries or as a single primary when the pathologist is not clear whether two separate tumor masses exist?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries, assuming the tumors are separate and the margins are clear/negative. Code 8071/3 [Invasive squamous cell ca, keratinizing] and 8500/3 [Ductal carcinoma, "microinvasive"].
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.
FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.
For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."
Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is "high grade atypia" and the diagnosis comment is "atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]"?
This case is not reportable.
The pathologist would need to include "carcinoma in situ" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.
Primary Site/Histology--Ovary: We are encountering a primary site, histologic type, and behavior combination edit based on the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) tables. Using the CPC*Search tool, C569 and 8441/3 is a valid combination. The diagnosis date is 01/13/2024. Should an over-ride be applied with this combination?
The CPC Validity Status of the site morphology combinations of C569/8441/3 and C569/8441/2 was revised from Valid to Unlikely with the latest release of the Version v24A Edits Metafile. As a result, this site and morphology combination will now require an over-ride flag to be set.
Code as 8461/3 (high-grade serous carcinoma) or 8460/3 (low-grade serous carcinoma) if at all possible. Use 8441/3 (serous carcinoma, NOS) only if it cannot be distinguished as low grade or high grade. The codes for high-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are relatively new. High-grade serous carcinoma and low-grade serous carcinoma are very different tumors and pathologists should state whether it is high grade or low grade. Please make every attempt to use the newer codes. If unable to determine high gade versus low grade, assign 8441/3 and override the edit.
The files on the CPC website are currently being updated, and CPC*Search will be updated to reflect the changes sometime this Fall.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD Fields: When a patient has two simultaneously diagnosed primaries, and a regional lymph node dissection intended for one of the primaries removes nodes that are also regional for the other primary, is the information from the lymph node dissection coded for both primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the lymph nodes are negative, the status of nodes that are regional for both sites would be used to code the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery fields for both sites.
If any of the lymph nodes are positive use the histology from the lymph nodes to determine how the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery will be coded. For example: If prostate cancer is an incidental finding when a cystoprostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are done to treat a bladder cancer, and all of the positive lymph nodes reflect the histology of the prostate primary (adenocarcinoma), code the nodes as positive for the prostate primary and negative for the bladder primary.
An official website of the United States government
Home