Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140025 | Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia" (9831/3) coded as "5 T-cell" instead of "9" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since "T-cell" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to "5"? |
Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies "T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia." The Heme DB grade instruction states "Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9." In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.
The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis |
2014 | |
|
|
20160062 | Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.
|
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.
Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4). And Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2. |
Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.
Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation. |
2016 |
|
|
20170036 | Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion. |
Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows: Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7 Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7 Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8 Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10 Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores. The prostate-related fields include: Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy |
When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields. Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1 Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2 Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2 Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3 Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3 |
2017 |
|
|
20021194 | Grade/Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the histology "High grade dysplasia (adenocarcinoma in situ)" or "AIN III/High grade AIN"? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code the Histology field for the first example to 8140/2 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS, in situ] and for the second example to 8077/2 [AIN, grade III]. For both of the cases code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined not stated or not applicable]. The 6th digit (grade code) of ICD-O-3 describes how much or how little a malignant tumor resembles the normal tissue from which it arose. In contrast, "grade" is used in the examples above to describe the degree of dysplasia, from mild dysplasia (low grade) to severe dysplasia (high grade). Do not record the degree of dysplasia in the 6th digit grade field. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules for histology coding instructions. 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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20160023 | Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms. |
You may code grade as follows.
Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)
Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3) |
2016 | |
|
|
20170064 | Grade/Histology--Rectum: How should histology and grade be coded for high grade neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (WHO Grade 3) of the rectum? See Discussion. |
Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3. |
Assign histology code 8246/3. Assign grade code 4 based on the description "high grade." A high-grade neuroendocrine "tumor" is actually a neuroendocrine "carcinoma" (NEC) according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. If possible, verify this interpretation with the diagnosing pathologist. Use text fields to document the details of this case. |
2017 |
|
|
20170081 | Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Assign grade code 2 for "differentiating" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that "it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a "well differentiated neuroblastoma" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting "differentiating" into what is usually a well differentiated category." Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. For cases diagnosed 2018 and later Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA |
2017 | |
|
|
20160049 | Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast. |
Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules. |
2016 | |
|
|
20130186 | Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion. |
FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology. |
Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2013 |
|
|
20170057 | Grade: If the biopsy site is a higher grade, is the grade of the biopsy used over the grade of the surgical resection? See Discussion. |
When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018: Use the Grade Coding Instructions to code grade. The instructions are intended to standardize coding of grade across the U.S. and to eliminate differences in opinion between pathologists. Standardized coding ensures that data can be combined and used for statistical analysis. You may code grade based on the biopsy when following the grade coding instructions. |
2017 |
An official website of the United States government
