Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140069 | 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. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140055 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this a reportable case and if so what codes would be used for the primary site and histology?
Lymph node flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy revealed involvement by a low-grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Medical oncologist states monoclonal gammopathy, question marginal zone B cell lymphoma versus lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder. |
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is not reportable, nor is monoclonal gammopathy. There is no definitive diagnosis for marginal zone or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. The terminology used includes "question" and "versus" which are not acceptable ambiguous terms for reportability. If possible, follow up with the physician regarding the definitive diagnosis. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140027 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology for the following bladder case and how do you determine? See discussion. |
8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND. |
Code 8122/3 (UC/TCC, Sarcomatoid). Rule H5 and Table 1 apply.
This is based on the information provided: Transitional Cell Carcinoma with sarcomatoid variant, and Table 1 in Terms and Definitions for "Ureter/Renal Pelvis/Bladder". |
2014 |
|
|
20140014 | First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion. | SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15 | The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue. | 2014 |
|
|
20140039 | Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of "JAK-2 positive polycythemia" reportable? See discussion. |
Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, "When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable." Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)? |
A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified. |
2014 |
|
|
20140084 | Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was "Plasma Cell Myeloma". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of "sequential plasmacytomas since 1995" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma. |
Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140046 | 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 |
2014 |
|
|
20140030 | 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. |
2014 | |
|
|
20140065 | Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion. |
The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.
Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205? |
Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS. |
2014 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
An official website of the United States government
