Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20110154 | Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3? |
Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive]. "Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110137 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for a "malignant baso-melanocytic tumor" arising in the skin of right shoulder? | Code the histology as melanoma, NOS [8720/3].
This is a malignant skin tumor with both melanoma and basal cell carcinoma histologies. There is no ICD-O-3 code for this entity. Per our subject matter expert, code the histology to 8720/3 [melanoma, NOS] and document the diagnosis of malignant baso-melanocytic tumor in a text field because melanoma is reportable to SEER and basal cell carcinoma is not.
|
2011 | |
|
|
20110013 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a "malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)"? See Discussion. |
Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.
Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used? |
As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes. |
2011 |
|
|
20110029 | DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion. | Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?
In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206). |
For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. | 2011 |
|
|
20110068 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Which multiple primary rule is used to determine the number of primaries to accession when a patient has a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2009 followed by a high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features per immunohistochemistry diagnosed in 2010? See Discussion. | A patient has papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in March of 2009. In June of 2010 the patient has another TURBT that demonstrates a flat in situ and invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC show results consistent with high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features." Two months later a liver biopsy shows poorly differentiated malignant tumor. The path addendum indicates, "Genzyme IHC results show metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features, favor bladder primary."
Is the latter a second bladder primary with histology code 8246/3 [neuroendocrine carcinoma]?
NOTE: Neuroendocrine is not listed as an urothelial tumor in Table 1 of MP/H Rules. |
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary. The 2010 diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma. The presence of "neuroendocrine features" does not change the histologic category.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Urinary MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module start at rule M3.
. Bladder tumors with any combination of transitional cell carcinoma and papillary transitional carcinoma are a single primary. |
2011 |
|
|
20110093 | Residence at dx: After living elsewhere (Florida) and traveling around the country in an RV with his spouse, is a patient a resident of this area for either primary if he was diagnosed with his first primary less than a month after arriving in the area and a second primary more than a year after parking his RV here? |
Use the patient's usual residence to determine residency. If the usual residence is not known or the information is not available, use the residence the patient specifies at the time of diagnosis. The SEER rules for determining "usual residence" match the rules used by the US Census Bureau. |
2011 | |
|
|
20110019 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral testes are involved with lymphoma? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary per Rule M2 which indicates to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9590/3 [lymphoma] and the primary site to C629 [testes. Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites.
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 |
|
|
20110141 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion. |
Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings. Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991. The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is "Primary DLBCL of the CNS." The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. 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 |
|
|
20110103 | MP/H Rules/Histology/Ambiguous terminology: Can synonyms of listed terms, such as "variety" for the list termed "type," be used to code a more specific histology? See Discussion. | The list of terms denoting a more specific histology does not include "variety." During MP/H training sessions there was an emphasis placed on only using terms listed to code a more specific histology. However, the results of an audit indicated that because "variety" is a synonym for "type" it could be used to code a more specific histology. Are synonyms of listed terms to be used to code histology? | No. Synonyms of listed words used in the MP/H rules (e.g., "variety" for the listed term "type") cannot be used to designate a more specific histology. | 2011 |
An official website of the United States government
