Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20130193 | Sex: How is sex coded for a transsexual diagnosed with a testicular primary? See Discussion. | The Physical Exam states patient is male. There is a note that the patient is transsexual. There is no indication that the orchiectomy was part of gender reassignment surgery. | Code sex to 1 [male]. When the natal sex is known, code that over transsexual. | 2013 |
|
20130192 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Pleura: How is histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is "malignant neoplasm, compatible with malignant mesothelioma" if the COMMENT section of the pathology report indicates the tumor has a mixed epithelial and sarcomatoid pattern? See Discussion. | This case was discussed with a pathologist who feels the correct histology should be biphasic mesothelioma (9053/3) because there are both epithelial and sarcomatoid components to this tumor. However, applying the current MP/H Rules, the histology is coded to 9050/3 (mesothelioma, NOS) because the term "pattern" cannot be used to code a more specific histologic type for invasive tumors. If this truly is a biphasic mesothelioma, that data is lost for researchers because the current MP/H Rules fail to capture this information. Should the term pattern be used to code the more specific histology in this case? | Code the histology to malignant mesothelioma, NOS [9050/3]. Apply the MP/H Rules as written until they are revised. The word "pattern" and other terms will be reconsidered for the next iteration of the rules. | 2013 |
|
20130220 | Reportability--Thyroid: Is a hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm of the thyroid reportable? See Discussion. | The pathology comment states: Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is considered by some to represent a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma because of the similar nuclear cytology, immunoprofile and RET-oncogene rearrangements. | Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is not reportable.
Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm, or hyalinizing trabecular tumor, is a synonym for hyalinizing trabecular adenoma [8336/0] in the ICD-O-3. The 2004 WHO classification states that "fine needle aspiration biopsy is often interpreted as papillary carcinoma because of the nuclear features in the tumor." |
2013 |
|
20130221 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion. | Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?
Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.
Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, "The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin)." |
Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.
In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3. |
2013 |
|
20130007 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What rule applies and how is histology coded if a colon tumor is composed of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1 (G1)? See Discussion. |
Intestine, large -- moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma
Pathological stage: IIIA (T2 N1a Mx) -- Neuroendocrine tumor, G1
Addendum comment: The results of the immunochemical study are compatible with a neuroendocrine tumor, G1. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the correct histology code is 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Colon Histology rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Step 2: Start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule H9. Code the histology as 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor.
Neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1 (G1) is synonymous with carcinoid tumor [8240/3] for the purpose of rule H9. |
2013 |
|
20130138 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2010 diagnosis of a preleukemic condition is subsequently diagnosed in 2012 with a specific leukemia that is not listed as a transformation? See Discussion. |
10/02/10 bone marrow biopsy showed myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassified [9989/3]. 6/19/12 bone marrow biopsy showed chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3]. CMML-2 is not listed as an acute neoplasm for MDS. Is this the same disease? Per the pre-2010 rules, this would be the same disease. The current Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. This case should be accessioned as two primaries, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [9989/3] diagnosed 10/2/10 and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3] diagnosed 6/19/12 per Rule M15. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primaries Calculator when rules M1-M14 do not apply. When myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) became reportable, the rules in effect at that time resulted in MDS often being the only diagnosis reported when both MDS and a leukemia were diagnosed. Statistics for some leukemias were impacted. Now we report both the MDS and the leukemia for greater accuracy. 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. |
2013 |
|
20130098 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why did the hematopoietic histology rule change regarding the coding of small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SLL/CLL) from the lymphoma code (9670/3) to leukemia (9823/3) when both tissue and bone marrow are involved? See Discussion. | The answer in SINQ 20110035 that instructs us to code the primary site to bone marrow [C421] is the opposite of what has been coded for years. After all the years of coding SLL/CLL as a lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow/blood are involved, why has the change to coding this to the leukemia code (9823/3) been made? | For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
There has been a change in coding practice based on a change in clinical classification of leukemia/lymphomas. In the past, we did, indeed, default to lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow were involved. The problem was that when only bone marrow was involved, the case was coded to leukemia with a primary site of bone marrow. When lymphoma symptoms developed later, there was a lot of inconsistency in how registries handled these cases. Some coded a new primary "lymphoma;" while others ignored the lymphoma calling it progression.
The clinical world, including the hematopoietic experts in the World Health Organization and the Inter-Lymph Consortium, agreed that for certain neoplasms (CLL/SLL being one of them) it was not useful or practical to code the leukemia and lymphoma separately OR to capture only one of the neoplasms (because these neoplasms almost always progress to lymphoma); so new codes for the leukemia/lymphoma were developed. According to the experts, 9823/3 most accurately portrays the neoplastic process for the neoplasms assigned to a lymphoma/leukemia code.
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. |
2013 |
|
20130186 | Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion. |
FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology. |
Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ |
2013 |
|
20130023 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion. |
If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules? |
The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720. |
2013 |
|
20130022 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is "early" melanoma reportable? See Discussion. |
Because "evolving" melanoma was never reportable, this issue only relates to "early" melanoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2018 to 2020, early or evolving melanoma is not reportable. Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. The tumors may be described as "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermal and adnexal epithelium," "atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation, "atypical intraepidermal melanocytic hyperplasia"; or "severe melanocytic dysplasia." Not reportable. Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules, 2018, page 3, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Melanoma_STM.pdf |
2013 |