Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100052 | Reportability/Primary Site: What is the reportability status and primary site for a papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue arising in an otherwise benign mature monodermal cystic teratoma (struma ovarii)? See Discussion. | Final diagnosis on the pathology report states, "One ovary showing mature monodermal cystic teratoma composed of thyroid tissue (struma ovarii)." The pathology COMMENT section states, "There is a 0.1 cm focus of thyroid tissue within the struma ovarii showing cytologic features of papillary carcinoma. This finding is likely of no clinical consequence." | A papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue in benign struma ovarii (mature cystic teratoma) is reportable.
These ovarian tumors contain a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth, bone, thyroid, etc. This reportable malignancy arose in thyroid tissue within the ovarian tumor. Code the primary site to ovary. Code to the actual organ in which the cancer arose. This will keep the case in the appropriate category for surgery coding, regional nodes, staging, etc. |
2010 |
|
|
20100002 | Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion. | The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable? | The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia. Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms "high grade dysplasia" or "severe dysplasia" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma. |
2010 |
|
|
20100099 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should all cases of precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed 1/1/10 and later with histology coded to 9836/3 have the values changed to 9811/3 per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section or should they remain coded 9836/3. | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] which is the new classification for pre-BALL. The histology code 9836/3 is obsolete as of 2010 and should not be used for cases with diagnosis date after 12/31/2009.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100108 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a "low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant? | Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, "There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant." | 2010 | |
|
|
20100006 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion. |
This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic. If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009. |
2010 |
|
|
20100048 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a patient diagnosed with Langerhans cell histocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma involving both the seventh rib and the right temporal bone? See Discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma following a biopsy of the seventh rib on 3/22/10. On 4/13/10 the patient had a right external ear canal mass (right temporal bone) biopsy with same diagnosis. Should the primary site be coded to bone, NOS [C419]? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary and code it to bone, NOS [C419]. Langerhans cell histiocytosis can occur as a solitary lesion, multifocal lesions, or multisystem disease. In this case, the patient has multifocal disease of the bone. The abstractor notes in the Hematopoietic DB were used as a reference for this answer.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2010 |
|
|
20100073 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on 4/7/10 by a bone marrow biopsy with myelodysplastic syndrome, refractory anemia (RAEB2) and on a 7/27/10 bone marrow biopsy with progression to acute myelogenous leukemia with 40% blasts (AML)? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M10, the first is a chronic neoplasm RAEB2 [9983/3] and the second is an acute neoplasm AML, NOS [9861/3]. Rule M10 states abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic phase (MDS RAEB2) and an acute disease (AML) is diagnosed more than 21 days later. This is the rule that fits your case.
There are several important pieces of information. There were two bone marrows biopsies; one confirmed the chronic disease and a second confirmed the acute disease. The dates of the bone marrows are more than 3 months apart. Because you have a chronic and an acute disease, Rules M8-M13 in the coding manual apply.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2010 | |
|
|
20100012 | Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. | The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? | The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. | 2010 |
|
|
20100010 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion. |
Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]? What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries. Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules. |
2010 |
|
|
20100076 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease. Thrombocytosis, NOS is listed in Appendix F as a Non-Reportable Term.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
2010 |
An official website of the United States government
