SEER Inquiry System - Search

The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?

In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.

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.

The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).

When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder.

We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules?

The path report reads: COMMENT: There is multifocal involvement throughout both bowel segments which combined represent a subtotal colectomy procedure. There are at least 11 tumors, all of which are histologically similar. Given the unusual gross appearance, a representative portion of the largest mass (hepatic flexure) was forwarded to _____ for flow cytometric evaluation. There is chronic active colitis in the background suggestive of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis. However, no dysplasia is seen in multiple random sections of grossly benign large bowel. ADDENDUM from expert gastroenterologist: The carcinomas are poorly differentiated without specific histologic features but are consistent with colon primaries. These findings are consistent with an MLH1-deficient carcinoma. Given the background chronic active colitis consistent with ulcerative colitis, this likely represents colitis-associated neoplasia which can be associated with multifocality.

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

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.

The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that "A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out." Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?