Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: SEER Program Manual instructions state, "Portugese, Brazilians and Filipinos are not Spanish; Code non-Spanish (code 0)." How is that determined? Is that based SOLELY on birthplace? See Discussion.
The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.
Birthplace Portugal; text states Spanish, south American or European Spanish
Birthplace Brazil, last name is on Spanish surname list; pt is married female. Text states "Hispanic female, NOS"
Birthplace Brazil or Portugal, text states patient is "Mexican", last name is on Spanish surname list
Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.
Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion.
The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors.
Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable.
MP/H Rules--Ovary: How do you code histology for a diagnosis of "clear cell CA, predominately cystic."
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8310 [Clear cell carcinoma]. Cystic describes the appearance of the tumor. Clear cell is the histologic type. Code clear cell carcinoma 8310/3. Rule H11 applies.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available.
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion.
A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?
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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.
If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:
Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion.
"Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma."
The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable.
Histology--Head & Neck: How do you code histology for a myofibroblastic sarcoma of the soft tissue of the head and neck?
Assign code 8825/3 [Myofibroblastoma, malignant]. According to the WHO Classification of Soft Tissue Tumors, "Low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma represents a distinct atypical myofibroblastic tumor often with fibromatosis-like features and predilection for the head and neck." Also called myofibrosarcoma.
Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Is mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma followed by classical Hodgkin lymphoma reportable as one or two primaries? See Discussion.
Diagnosed 06/06/2006 with mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, 9679/36. On 05/10/2007, another mediastinal lymph node biopsy done and the diagnosis was recurrent malignant lymphoma, classical Hodgkin's. A Hematopatholgy Consultant states, "it appears likely that the preceding mediastinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the current classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are clonally related and represent different manifestations of the same entity. One might also place this in the spectrum of 'mediastinal gray zone lymphoma' described by Dr. Jaffee and colleagues."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report this case as two primaries. Report non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by Hodgkin lymphoma as separate primaries.
According to the Table of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies, mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin disease are "D" - Different disease processes.
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.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion.
None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.
The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.
An official website of the United States government
Home