Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100065 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS" synonymous with "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term "myeloproliferative syndrome" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].
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 |
|
|
20100095 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion. |
Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free. In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade. On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue. Is this a new renal pelvis primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years. |
2010 |
|
|
20100046 | Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. |
For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated. |
The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.
Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease. |
2010 |
|
|
20100110 | Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed? |
For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466 |
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 |
|
|
20100036 | Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion. | In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?
Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.
Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? |
Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.
Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided. |
2010 |
|
|
20100028 | Primary site/Histology--Head & Neck: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis for a skull based mass is "neuroendocrine carcinoma" and the IHC studies are incompatible with a brain/spinal cord primary (ependymoma)? See Discussion. |
The pathology report final diagnosis is, "skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma." The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology? |
According to our subject matter expert physician, this unusual case is most likely a sino-nasal tumor (some variant of esthesioneuroblastoma [olfactory neuroblastoma]). Code to nasal cavity [C300] as indicated in ICD-O-3 by site-associated topography code attached to the morphology code for olfactory neuroblastoma [9522/3]. |
2010 |
|
|
20100092 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site for the follicular lymphoma diagnosis be coded to C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when a bone marrow biopsy reveals both acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma? See Discussion. | Bone marrow biopsy reveals acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma. There were no other studies done, no chemo given, and the patient expired shortly after diagnosis. Should the follicular lymphoma be coded to a primary site C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS]? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Per Rule PH26, bone marrow is the primary site when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. All the available physical exams, scans, and other work-up must also be negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement. When there is no additional workup beyond the bone marrow biopsy and that biopsy is positive, code the primary site to bone marrow in those situations as well.
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 |
|
|
20100090 | MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. | Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. | 2010 |
An official website of the United States government
