Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150037 | Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion. |
According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct? |
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later Lobular neoplasia (LN II and LN III) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN II and LIN III) are reportable and coded 8520/2. |
2015 |
|
|
20150060 | Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion. |
A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems. |
Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants. |
2015 |
|
|
20150009 | Multiple Primaries/Behavior--Lung: When a patient has an invasive lung primary, how do in situ tumors of the lung affect the determination of multiple primaries? See discussion. |
How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)? |
Most often when the invasive tumor and the in situ component are in the same lung and are the same histology, rule M12 (example 3) applies and this is a single primary. If the first wedge resection included part of the tumor and the in situ was not separate from the tumor, it is a single primary. We suspect that the margins were positive on the first wedge specimen which prompted the second wedge resection where the in situ was found. In addition, terminology for lung malignancies is undergoing change: what was called BAC (invasive) is now called adenocarcinoma in situ. |
2015 |
|
|
20150007 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion. |
4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
|
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150039 | Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, " bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; "findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype"; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;". |
SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150044 | Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive" and “low malignant potential?" See discussion. |
Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants |
Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66. |
2015 |
|
|
20150027 | Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)? |
Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection. |
2015 |
|
|
20150028 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is "Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description". The second statement is "Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis"
One of our pathology labs frequently will state "keratinizing squamous cell" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state "squamous cell carcinoma" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis? |
Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis. |
2015 | |
|
|
20150067 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion. |
Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant. |
Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma. |
2015 |
|
|
20150058 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries. |
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
