Histology/Reportability--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case that is compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome with multilineage dysplasia (MDS-MLD) reportable, and if so, is the histology plasma cell myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? See Discussion.
HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis
High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment.
Comments
Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation. Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization
This case is reportable. Assign MDS, NOS (9989/3) based on the information provided for this case. “Compatible with” can be used for reportability; however, it cannot be used for assigning histology. There is no confirmed diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma/neoplasm; the comment specifically addresses the need for further evaluation of this case.
Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.
Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?
Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.
This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].
Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246?
Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma.
Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion.
In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm.
Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant.
Histology: Is there any guidance on using STRATA Oncology testing (molecular tumor profiling tests), such as StrataNGS and StrataEXP, to code SSDIs, histology, etc? I do not see anything in STR, SEER Program Manual, SINQ, or CAnswerForum. We are seeing the testing with our 2021 paths.
We recommend that you do not use information from these molecular tumor profiling tests until they become a standard diagnostic tool. If/when that happens, we will add information to the various manuals.
Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion.
According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:
1) To preserve ovarian function.
2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given.
Hormone Therapy--Breast: How are hormone therapy (HT) and other related data items coded when a patient had a previous breast primary and is still on HT when diagnosed with a new breast primary? See Discussion.
In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?
For this example: 1. Code HT as treatment on the date of diagnosis for the second primary. 2. Code Systemic/Surgery Sequence as 4. 3. Do not code neoadjuvant data items as neoadjuvant started/completed. The HT given would not qualify for neoadjuvant therapy since the intent of the HT was not neoadjuvant. The HT would affect the second primary, but it is still not neoadjuvant. 4. Code clinical and pathological tumor size accordingly, based on the imaging and the pathological findings. 5. Code Extent of Disease data items based on the pathological findings since pathological findings take priority over clinical and this is not neoadjuvant therapy.
Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER?
Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells.
Laterality--Brain and CNS: Can Laterality be coded as 5 (midline) for a sella turcica meningioma (or tuberculum sellae meningioma) when no other statement regarding tumor laterality is documented? See Discussion.
Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable?
You may assign code 5 (Paired site: midline tumor) for laterality of a meningioma of the sella turcica (C700).
The 2022 SEER manual states in Laterality coding instruction 5: Assign Laterality code 5 only when the primary site is C700, C710-C714, C722-C725, C443, C445. Do not assign code 5 to sites not listed in 5.a.
Note that code 9 is for paired sites and there is no information concerning laterality.
Document laterality information in the appropriate text field. Note: Laterality does not factor into the CNS Solid Tumor rules.
An official website of the United States government
Home