Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061142 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: How many cases are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded for cases in which a fibrosarcoma arises in or transforms from a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans? See Discussion. | 1. If the fibrosarcoma occurs after DFP, and is called metastatic, is it a recurrence or is it a new primary? Example: Pt diagnosed in 7/05 with a high grade fibrosarcoma arising in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The path indicated "The presence of high grade fibrosarcoma, the extent of the tumor necrosis and the mitotic rate are all adverse prognostic findings that indicate a significant risk for mets." The patient had a recurrence in 8/06 called a low grade fibrosarcoma mets from prev." The DFP code is 8832/3 and a fibrosarcoma code is 8810/3. Our pathologist feels that the fibrosarcoma is a more aggressive tumor so should the case be coded to the 8810/3.
2. If DFSP has areas of fibrosarcoma, should it be coded to the latter because it is more aggressive? Example: Skin and subcutaneous tissue reads: Low grade sarcoma - tumor extends to margin. Comment: "Although the predominant pattern of this tumor is consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, focal presence of hypercellularity and increased mitotic figures suggest transformation to Grade I fibrosarcoma. This progression, although focal, carries an increased risk of mets over classic DFSP. Code to 8810/31? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8832/3 [Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans] for both cases. DFSP with transformation to fibrosarcoma and DFSP with areas of fibrosarcoma are coded to 8832/3.
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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061141 | Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion. | Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital. Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate: Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia. Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process. Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear. COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future. 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061140 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Corpus uteri: Is a microscopic metastasis in a cul-de-sac implant more appropriately reflected in the CS Extension field code 80 [Further contiguous extension; cul-de-sac] or in the CS Mets at Dx field code 40 [Distant metastasis]? | 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.Assign code 80 [Further contiguous extension; Cul de sac] for CS extension in this case. Endometrium and ovary are exceptions to the rules that only contiguous extension is coded in Extension code 80. Only true distant metastases are coded in Mets at Dx. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061139 | 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061138 | 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061137 | 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061136 | 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061135 | 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061134 | 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061133 | Terminology, NOS--Melanoma: Is a diagnosis of melanoma "with associated intradermal nevus" coded the same as a melanoma "arising in a nevus"? | Yes, melanoma "associated with" a nevus and melanoma "arising in" a nevus are synonymous. | 2006 |
An official website of the United States government
