Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: How is surgery coded when a patient undergoes a mediastinoscopy with mediastinal lymph node sampling and then a later upper lobectomy? See discussion.
The mediastinal nodes were submitted as a separate specimen. The patient also had several peribronchial nodes identified within the lobectomy specimen.
Does code 33 (Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection) require a complete mediastinal lymph node dissection (i.e. the removal of all lymph nodes in mediastinal chain(s) as opposed to a selective sampling/dissection of lymph nodes from multiple mediastinal chains)?
Assign code 33 in this situation. Code 33 can include mediastinal lymph node sampling.
Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable?
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this lung tumor? FINAL PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS: CT-guided Rotex and Franseen needle biopsies: Positive for malignancy, consistent with adenocarcinoma. Comment: the adenocarcinoma present also shows rare CD56 staining which indicates a neuroendocrine component.
Is this a mixed histology? 8045/3? 8244/3?
Assign histology code 8140/3, adenocarcinoma, based on the final diagnosis. The neuroendocrine component in this case is not another histology, nor is it a more specific adenocarcinoma. "Component" is not one of the words that we use to indicate a more specific histology.
Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an instruction missing under Rule PH22 of the 2014 Heme Manual that addresses when it might be appropriate to code primary site to C779 for a Stage II lymphoma? See discussion.
It appears there is no instruction under PH22 that covers Example 5 (The patient has a history of Stage II lymphoma, no other information is available). All the bulleted instructions are for organ and lymph node combination involvement. Was the 2010 Heme Rule PH31 (Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified) supposed to be listed under PH22? There does appear to be an empty bullet on the current web version.
The 5th bullet under Rule PH 22 was inadvertently omitted. A corrected version of the Heme manual will be posted soon. Thank you for identifying this omission.
In the meantime, please add the following to PH22:
Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified.
Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion.
Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual.
For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.
How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?
Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries are there and which MP rules apply in this scenario? See discussion.
Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.
Rule M9 applies. Abstract 2 primaries.
We will evaluate this scenario for the next version of the multiple primary rules.
MP/H/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: Is this one primary with a C689 primary code and morphology 8130/3? Or is this 2 primaries: 1. C679 8130/3 and 2.C680 8120/2. See discussion.
Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.
Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.
Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.
Abstract a single primary, C679 8130/3. Rules M2 and H4 apply. Transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra is likely an extension from the known bladder TCC in this case, not a separate primary. See prostatic urethra on page 63 in the Urinary Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How would you code this histology: Renal cell carcinoma, clear and eosinophilic cell type?
Kidney rule H5 applies, code the more specific histology which is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (8310/3). Per the WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, clear cell renal cell carcinoma contains both clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Eosinophilic is not a type or variant of renal cell carcinoma.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home