Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion.
The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC.
For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why.
Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules.
Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.
When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.
MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis?
Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states "Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007." Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.
The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.
It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?
A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).
M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.
MP/H/Multiple primaries--Urinary: In Aug 2008 Patient was diagnosed with Noninvasive Bladder Cancer. In Oct 2013 Patient was diagnosed with Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Right Ureter involving lamina propria, Noninvasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma Left Ureter and Invasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Prostatic Urethra. Is this a new primary and what is the primary site?
Rule M7 applies when comparing the 2008 diagnosis to the 2013 diagnosis: multiple primaries.
Rule M8 applies to the tumors identified in 2013: single primary.
Based on the information provided, code the primary site for 2013 to C689 because there is no indication of the site of origin among the involved sites.
Primary site--Bladder: What is the primary site for bladder tumor biopsy: invasive adenocarcinoma, enteric type favor urachal origin, stage III
Based on the information provided, code the primary site to urachus (C677). Primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder accounts for less than 1% of all bladder malignancies. Of these, 20–39% are urachal in origin.
MP/H/Multiple primaries--Stomach: How should I report this case? I reviwed both the MP/H and the Heme Rules and could not determine whether or not this case is multiple primaries in a single site but two histologies and therefore needing two separate abstracts.
Path Diagnosis: Gastric Mass Biopsy: 1) Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. 2) Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT Lymphoma). 3) Mild Intestinal Metaplasia and Marked Fundic Gland Atrophy, Negative for H Pylori. Comments: Biopsy shows presence of both signet ring carcinoma and MALT Lymphoma.
Report two primaries: MALT lymphoma and signet ring carcinoma. Use the 2007 MP/H rules and the Heme rules for this case.
This case could be an example of a "collision tumor" - two separate tumors that grow together into one mass. Collision tumors are a rare exception to rule M2 in the MP/H rules.
Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.
This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.
So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy.
This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.
11/8/2013 Rt orchiectomy: teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma).
5/2/2014 Abdominal mass excision: metastatic teratoma involving matted lymph nodes. Patient age at diagnosis is 31.
Per web search, a teratoma with somatic type malignancy is a rare type of tumor. Should the histology be coded to 8140/3? This seems to conflict with SINQ 20120085, which indicates a testicular mature teratoma in an adult is malignant, and in this example, it was also the portion of tumor that metastasized.
Assign code 9084/3, listed in ICDO as teratoma with malignant transformation.
Our expert pathologist consultant states that this is a very rare situation. The non-germ cell components are believed to arise out of the teratoma portions, and are seen in only of few percent of teratomas. They are given the designation "teratoma with somatic type malignancies" (WHO).
An official website of the United States government
Home