MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.
A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How is this field to be coded when a patient undergoes stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor? Path specimen consists of four fragments of tissue measuring .7, .6 and .3 cm.
Assign code 20 [Local excision (biopsy) of lesion or mass. Specimen sent to pathology from surgical event 20].
Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology to be coded for a pituicytoma WHO grade I, of the pituitary?
Assign code 9380/1 [glioma, borderline].
According to our pathologist consultant, the term pituicytoma is restricted to low-grade glial neoplasms of the neurohypophysis or infundibulum. The best category currently available for these is glioma.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion.
Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.
Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?
Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.
Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.
Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.
Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460
Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma.
Examples
1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum]
2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion.
The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: What code should be used for the the following? There is no mention of LNS clinically; the patient has neoadjuvant therapy; and the LNS are matted pathologically.
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.Use the information from the pathologic evaluation to code CS Lymph nodes.
In the nodes evaluation field, assign code 6 [Regional lymph nodes removed for examination with pre-surgical systemic treatment or radiation and lymph node evaluation based on pathologic evidence]. See CS Lymph Nodes note 4.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How do you use Rule H5 or H6 to code "moderately diff adenoca with mucinous component"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma]. Rule H6 applies because the final diagnosis is not "mucinous adenocarcinoma" and the percentage of mucinous adenocarcinoma is not stated.
Rule H13 does not apply because "component" is not a term that indicates a specific histology.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion.
A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?
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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.
If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available.
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
An official website of the United States government
Home