Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160047 | Reportability--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) from an excision of the left eye conjunctiva reportable? |
Conjuctival intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) is reportable. Intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III, is listed in ICD-O-3 as /2. It is reportable for sites other than skin. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160035 | Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable? |
Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160076 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)? |
The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160057 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants? |
Assign 8523/3.
The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160075 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of "undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm"? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion. |
Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies? |
Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma." |
2016 |
|
|
20160036 | Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the left submandibular gland reportable and how is it coded? See Discussion. |
The physician is calling it an indolent tumor, pT3/NX/M0 stage 3 with positive margins. Is the correct code C509, 8502/3? |
Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) is reportable. MASC is a recently described tumor that predominantly arises in the parotid gland. In this case, if the primary site is submandibular gland, assign C080. We contacted our expert pathologist and he stated that the best code to use for MASC is 8502/3. Override any edits triggered by the combination of C080 and 8502/3. |
2016 |
|
|
20160068 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion. |
It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable. |
This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System. Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone. |
2016 |
|
|
20160020 | Reportability--Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable? |
High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160004 | First course treatment/Other therapy: How is Sirolimus (Rapamycin) to be coded when given with known chemotherapy agents in a clinical trial? See discussion. |
The SEER*Rx Database lists Sirolimus as an ancillary agent under the Category section, but as an mTOR inhibitor under the Subcategory. The Remarks section indicates Sirolimus (AKA Rapamycin) is an immunosuppressant, but is also a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Other types of kinase inhibitors (including Temsirolimus) are types of Chemotherapy. Although the Coding section states this drug should not be coded, Primary Sites (NSCLC and glioblastoma) are listed for this drug. The SEER*Rx Database page for this drug is confusing. Please address the following. 1) Should Sirolimus not be coded when it is being given as a kinase inhibitor or an immunosuppressant? 2) If Sirolimus is ever treatment, should it be coded only for the primary sites listed? 3) If Sirolimus is given as part of a non-blind clinical trial for another site other than NSCLC or glioblastoma, should the Other Therapy field be coded to 2 [experimental - other treatment]? |
Sirolimus is used to treat GVHD (graft versus host disease) and is not coded as treatment. Even though the sub-category is mTOR inhibitor it does not automatically mean it is a chemotherapeutic agent. Sirolimus affects cells differently than Temsirolimus. The chemical compounds differ between these drugs. In order to code rapamycin, the drug given must be stated to be either the analog or ester compound. The SEER*RX database has been corrected and NSCLC/glioblastoma are no longer listed for sirolimus. We researched clinical trials and found several that include sirolimus with other chemotherapy drugs for patients who either have received or will be receiving bone marrow transplants for hematologic diseases. In this case it is not coded. There are a few trials that are looking at sirolimus as a treatment for bladder, prostate, nerve sheath tumors, MDS, and AML. For these cases it would be coded in Other (code 2). |
2016 |
|
|
20160008 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion. |
We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories M - Possible non-HCC malignancy 1 - Definitely Benign 2 - Probably Benign 3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC 4 - Probably HCC 5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date? |
Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
