Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion.
Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.
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.
CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion.
CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?
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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.
The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.
CS Lymph Node Examined--Lung: How is this field coded when a mediastinoscopy and lobectomy are performed and the pathology report indicates multiple lymph node fragments were removed as biopsy specimens and the lobectomy specimen revealed 3 interlobar lymph nodes?
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.
Code the CS Lymph Node Examined field to 98 [number unknown] because the biopsy information is not clear and as a result you do not know how many lymph nodes were examined.
Reportability: Is an AIN III that arises in perianal skin, skin tags or condyloma acuminatum reportable or must an AIN III arise in the anus or anal canal in order to be reportable?
AIN III arising in perianal skin [C445] is not reportable.
AIN III [8077/2] of the anus or anal canal is reportable.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
Primary Site: What site code best reflects the final diagnosis of a metastatic "pancreatobiliary" adenocarcinoma to the liver? See Discussion.
CT showed multiple masses in the liver and lymphadenopathy in areas of gastrohepatic ligament, celiac axis, superior mesenteric and left periaortic regions. No mention of a mass in pancreas or common duct. When the term "pancreatobiliary" primary is stated in the final diagnosis, what site code should be used?
Contact the physician for clarification of the term "pancreatobiliary." If no further information can be obtained for this case, assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS] based on the CT findings for the specific case in this question.
When the primary is described as "pancreatobiliary" with NO FURTHER INFORMATION, assign C269.
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded when a nipple biopsy demonstrates Paget disease and a separate biopsy in the same breast demonstrates inflammatory breast carcinoma? See Discussion.
Should Paget disease be coded as the histology because it has a higher histology code than inflammatory carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the inflammatory carcinoma as one primary and the Paget disease as a separate primary. The first three digits of the histology codes for these histologies are different (8530 and 8540). Therefore, these are separate primaries.
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.
CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: Do modifying terms such as "borderline" affect whether lymph nodes are coded as involved when they are used in conjunction with the descriptors listed in Note 2 (i.e., mass, adenopathy or enlargement) for lung primaries? See Discussion.
Lung primary: CT states "borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes. Note 2 in the Lung schema under CS Lymph Nodes does not address qualifiers.
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 the hilar lymph nodes as involved in this case. "Borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes do not meet the clinical criteria for enlargement.
An official website of the United States government
Home