Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20081089 | Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is this field coded for a tumor described as "multinodular carcinoma of the thyroid"? See Discussion. | This information is from a pathology report. No other information is available. | Count the number of measured nodules. If the nodules are not measured, code 99 in the multiplicity counter. | 2008 |
|
20081106 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following? Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma. Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features. Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma. See Discussion. |
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies. According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma. Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries. |
2008 |
|
20081031 | MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors: #1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock). #2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion. |
In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision. To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3. |
2008 |
|
20081021 | Primary Site/Surgery of Other Site--Leukemia: If hairy cell leukemia is diagnosed at splenectomy, and 1 month later a bone marrow confirms the same diagnosis, is the primary site coded to spleen or bone marrow? If the site is bone marrow, is the splenectomy coded to 2 (regional) or 4 (distant) in the surgery field? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Primary site: Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per primary site coding instructions for leukemia in the 2007 SEER manual, page 70.
Surgery of other site: Since all surgical procedures for hematopoietic diseases are coded in the data item Surgery of Other Site, assign code 1 [Nonprimary surgical procedure performed]. 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 | |
|
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 |
|
20081004 | First course treatment/Histology--Lymphoma: What treatment, if any, is coded for a patient with methotrexate induced lymphoma when the treatment plan is to take the patient off methotrexate? Also, is there a specific histology for drug induced lymphoma? See Discussion. | Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma of soft palate & nasal septum, methotrexate induced, in 5/07. Patient was taken off methotrexate with complete resolution of disease. No other treatment was given. Patient was on methotrexate for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Treatment: Code the treatment fields to 00 [not done] in this case. Document the discontinuation of methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis in a text field. Histology: Assign code 9680/36 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, NOS]. There is no specific histology code for therapy-related lymphoma. 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 |
|
20081119 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion. |
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report. Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.) |
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case. The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly." The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology. |
2008 |
|
20081103 | 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. |
2008 | |
|
20081136 | CS Extension--Corpus uteri: Can a suspicious cytology be used to code extension? See Discussion. | Endometrial primary confirmed by biopsy on 10/26/06. Pelvic washing on 11/14/06 was 'suspicious for malignancy.' Resection path the same day stated the primary tumor invades the inner 1/3 of the myometrium.
Can we use the pelvic washing cytology & code CS extension 61 or should CS extension be coded 12? |
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 extension code 61 [cancer cells in peritoneal washings] for the case described above. "Suspicious" is listed as a term indicating involvement. There is no exception noted for cytology reports. See page 122 of the 2007 SEER manual. |
2008 |
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
2008 |