Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081022 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Wilm's Tumor: Is the fact that a Wilm's tumor case is bilateral captured in the CS Extension field or is the CS Mets at Dx field coded to 40? | 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.Code laterality as bilateral, code the greatest extension from either side in CS extension. Code CS Mets at diagnosis 00 [None] UNLESS true distant metastases were identified. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081040 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded? | Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation. Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability. Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology. The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20081122 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Patient has single invasive left breast tumor diagnosed in 2008. Final pathology diagnosis is "Invasive solid papillary carcinoma". No mention of ductal in report. What is histology? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: As of July 2010: Code the histology 8503 [Infiltrating papillary adenocarcinoma]. This is solid papillary, not solid AND papillary carcinoma. Solid is an adjective modifying papillary, in other words, a subtype of papillary. We do not have a code for solid papillary, so we code to the NOS, papillary using rule H14. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081073 | CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion. |
According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines. |
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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution. |
2008 |
|
|
20081036 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules. | 2008 | |
|
|
20081109 | MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion. |
A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94. The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary. Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis. Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available. |
2008 |
|
|
20081055 | MP/H Rules--Melanoma: How many primaries are represented if subsequent to a diagnosis of malignant melanoma of skin of left thorax in April 2006, a metastatic melanoma is discovered in the soft tissue of the abdomen and in the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the groin in late 2007? See Discussion. | 4/20/06: skin left lateral thorax, excision: Pedunculated malignant melanoma, 0.5 CM in height, Clark's level 3, Breslow depth 0.5 CM, superficial ulceration noted. No host response. Margins clear. 6/19/06: Four sentinel LNs negative. Interferon therapy. 10/30/07: FNA of soft tissue, left lower abdomen: consistent with metastatic melanoma. 12/20/07 A) sentinel lymph node, left groin, biopsy: No morphologic or immunophenotypic findings support for metastatic melanoma (see comment). B) skin and subcutaneous tissue, left groin, excisional biopsy: Metastatic malignant melanoma (see comment). Lymphovascular invasion identified. Margins free of melanoma. Melanoma 1.5 MM from the closest designated deep margin and 5 MM from the designated 6:00 margin. C) skin, left groin/additional inferior margin, excisional biopsy: No significant histopathologic abnormality. No evidence of villus or melanoma or malignancy. Comment: A 0.8 cm metastatic nodular melanoma is present in the adipose tissue. The underlying skin is unremarkable. There is no evidence of ulceration, melanocytic lesion, melanoma in situ, or regression of melanoma. Block A1 is sent for immunohistochemical studies. The immunophenotypic findings provide no support for metastatic melanoma in lymph node. Please see the immunohistochemical study. The primary MD states "Recurrent intransit mets, left groin." |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary, melanoma of the thorax 4/20/06. The subsequent reports mention metastases, but do not document another primary. Do not count metastatic lesions as new primaries. | 2008 |
|
|
20081123 | Reportability--Brain: Is angiocentric glioma, WHO grade 1 of the right frontal lobe reportable? If so, how is histology to be coded? | Angiocentric glioma is reportable. The best histology code currently available is 9380/1 [glioma, NOS; uncertain behavior]. According to the WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumours, Angiocentric glioma has a behavior of /1. WHO defines it as an epilepsy-associated stable or slowly growing cerebral tumour primarily affecting children and young adults; histopathologicaly characterized by an angiocentric pattern of growth, monomorphous bipolar cells and features of ependymal differentiation. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081066 | Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion. | Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.
When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number. |
Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only]. Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor]. |
2008 |
|
|
20081001 | CS Tumor Size: Can an 'ulcerated mass' be used to code CS tumor size? See Discussion.
|
The CS Manual (p. 26, 4.a.) states do not code the size of the polyp, ulcer or cyst. However it states that a 'cystic mass' can be used to code TS if it is the only size given. Scopes Text: 'ulcerated' mass based at anal verge & ext 3-4 cm up into rectum. | 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 CS Tumor size using the size of an ulcerated mass.
Answer from:
|
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
