Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when a pathology report describes a tumor as a low grade neoplasm consistent with a specific histologic type (e.g., Low grade neoplasm consistent with carcinoid)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Low grade].
Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable?
Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia is equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. Our expert pathologist consultant confirmed this for us.
Surgery of Primary Site/Reconstruction-First Course--Breast: If the plan is to "reconstruct" the breast 6 months after an ipsilateral modified radical mastectomy, is the time span a problem or should it be coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field because it was planned?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 55 [Modified radical mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast, Implant]. The time span is not a problem as long as the reconstruction was planned as first course, which is indicated by tissue expander insertion at the time of the original surgery.
Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?
For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.
Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.
CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets?
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.
The Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology for a "malignant invasive gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)"?
For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006: Malignant GIST is coded 8936/3.
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.
Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "the differential diagnoses include, but not limited to, mantle cell lymphoma, atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and a variant of marginal zone lymphoma" reportable? In the Heme manual, they use differential diagnosis that include reportable conditions as reportable. This can be found under Code 1: positive histology in the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instruction section page 18. The phrase "include, but not limited to" makes this not clear.
This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly.
CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.
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.
The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.
Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.
Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.
Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: "In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ).
Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, "There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so." "PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported."
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
An official website of the United States government
Home