Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110094 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is a "nipple sparing mastectomy" coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] or 40 [total (simple) mastectomy] if the nipple/areolar complex was not removed but the pathology specimen indicates some breast skin was removed? See Discussion. |
In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, "A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin." More "nipple-sparing mastectomies" are now being performed at certain facilities.
Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies? |
Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 [Subcutaneous mastectomy] for this case.
Assign code 30 when the nipple and areolar complex are NOT removed. Assign code 40 (or higher) when the nipple and areolar complex ARE removed. |
2011 |
|
|
20110004 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which MP/H rule applies when coding the histology field for a tumor described as a "metaplastic carcinoma, adenosquamous and spindle cell type"? See Discussion. | Per path comment: "The neoplasm is composed of adenosquamous carcinoma which merges with spindle cell carcinoma. The cystic component shows a mixed squamous and ductal epithelial lining which shows cytologic atypia and mitotic activity and can be seen to merge with invasive carcinoma. The features suggest the possibility that the tumor may have arisen from a sclerosing and cystic papilloma with squamous metaplasia, although a clearly benign component is not evident."
Would MP/H rule H19 apply based on the pathology report comment resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]? Or, would MP/H rule H14 apply based on the final diagnosis resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma] because adenosquamous and spindle cell are not specific types of metaplastic carcinoma? |
This is a metaplastic carcinoma as stated in the path diagnosis. Rule H14 applies. Assign code 8575/3. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the histology for this case. Code histology to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma] as stated in the pathology diagnosis.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histo rules determine histology for the case.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE CARCINOMA ONLY module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H10 to Rule H19. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation. |
2011 |
|
|
20110016 | Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion. | Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The "malignant" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses. | The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.
The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. |
2011 |
|
|
20110149 | Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion. |
Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma? If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used? How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology]. Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy). NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given. 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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110044 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: What are the histologies for the primaries to be reported when the endometrium contains two separate tumors composed of adenocarcinoma with multiple differentiations as well as a separate small focus of clear cell carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The resected specimen showed, "Adenocarcinoma of endometrium with the following features: Histologic type: Endometrioid with squamous and focal clear cell differentiation. A second focus of endometrial adenocarcinoma is present in the fundus with admixed complex atypical hyperplasia in a polypoid, non-invasive mass. The second tumor is endometrioid with secretory differentiation. COMMENT: The tissue in between the two tumors is sampled, and contains foci of endometrial adenocarcinoma that is superficially present within the endometrium, as well as a small focus of clear cell carcinoma measuring 0.2 cm." Per MP/H rules M17, this is counted as multiple primaries because the histology codes differ at the third digit: 8323/3, 8382/3, 8310/3. The Multiple Primary rules make no reference to the histology tables. There is also no rule to ignore the in situ tumor. In addition, the histology table in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual for Other Sites does not include "secretory differentiation" as a type of GYN malignancy. |
After consultation with our expert pathologist, the decision is report this case as a single primary. There was some confusion about how to apply the current MP/H rules to this pathology report given 1) the definition of M16 and M17 and 2) the likelihood for a single endometrial primary to present with several differentiations. According to our expert pathologist, "I would regard this case as a single endometrial primary with extensive endometrial involvement and several types of differentiation, all of which are seen in endometrial carcinomas." Next, the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. The following steps are used to determine the histology code. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules. Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies. GYN malignancies with multiple types of adenocarcinoma have histology coded to 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] per rule H30. |
2011 |
|
|
20110037 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site is coded for the 2010 cervical lymph node excision diagnosis of composite lymphoma that followed a 2002 history of follicular lymphoma involving lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm? See Discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with a composite lymphoma of a cervical lymph node 8 years after diagnosis of follicular lymphoma that involved lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm. The patient's follicular lymphoma was diagnosed in 2002.
In 2010 an excisional biopsy of a left neck lymph node showed classical Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type, grade 2 (predominant component) associated with (minor component) low grade follicular lymphoma (composite lymphoma).
Should the primary site for the 2010 primary be coded to C770 [lymph nodes of head, face & neck] or C778 [multiple lymph node regions]? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C770 [lymph nodes of the head and neck]. Per Rule PH19, code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when only one lymph node or one lymph node region is involved. No involvement other than the cervical lymph nodes is mentioned for the disease in 2010.
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
|
|
20110031 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if patient initially diagnosed with granulocytic sarcoma on a vocal cord biopsy is subsequently diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia more than 21 days later? See Discussion. | The patient has a history of refractory anemia with excess blasts diagnosed in 2008. A vocal cord biopsy performed on 6/2/2010 stated, "in view of a previous history of myelodysplastic syndrome this is indicative of transformation to acute leukemia" and consistent with granulocytic sarcoma. A bone marrow biopsy done on 7/19/2010 stated this was compatible with refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation.
Granulocytic sarcoma is a solid manifestation of AML. When these diagnoses occur more than 21 days apart, are they separate primaries?
According to the WHO definition, this is acute myeloid leukemia complicating myelodysplasia. Which rule applies for this case? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries. The first is refractory anemia with excess blasts in 2008, and the second is AML June 2, 2010.
As for the disease occurring in 2010, granulocytic sarcoma does not transform into AML. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under the term "granulocytic sarcoma," it indicates that "Myeloid sarcoma (also known as granulocytic sarcoma) may occur de novo; it may precede or coincide with AML, or represent an acute blastic transformation of myelodysplastic syndromes." This means that when granulocytic/myeloid sarcoma is seen with AML, it represents a solid manifestation of the systemically involved AML. In other words, it is all the same disease process (coded to AML) if it occurs simultaneously.
In this case, when the physician gave a provisional diagnosis of "transformation to acute leukemia" it indicated he saw the solid deposits of myeloid cells on the vocal cord. Per Rule M3, AML and myeloid (granulocytic) sarcoma appearing simultaneously are a single primary coded to AML. When the patient has AML, solid myeloid deposits (myeloid sarcoma) may appear. This is a manifestation of the AML rather than a new primary. Rule PH10 states to code the histology to AML.
Under the Transformation section in the Heme DB for refractory anemia with excess blasts (a chronic neoplasm), it indicates this disease process does transform to acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (an acute neoplasm). In this case, the chronic and acute disease processes were diagnosed at different times. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20110111 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion. |
The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy? |
This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor). In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized. |
2011 |
|
|
20110051 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral breasts are involved with MALT lymphoma and the bone marrow is negative? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology mentioned. The histology is coded to 9699/3 [MALT lymphoma]. Code the primary site to C509 [breast] per Rule PH24 which states to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.
Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal, extragastric MALT lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites (breast is an example).
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. |
2011 |
An official website of the United States government
