Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160051 | Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block? |
Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160032 | Reportability--Brain: Is benign lymphangioma of the brain (9170/0) reportable? It is not on the list of non-malignant blood vessel tumors in the National Program of Cancer Registries Clarifications for Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors. |
Lymphangioma of the brain or CNS is not reportable. Lymphangioma is a malformation of the lymphatic system. Even though it has an ICD-O-3 code, do not report it. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160049 | Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast. |
Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160025 | MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the correct histology code for a NUT midline carcinoma? |
Code histology to 8010/3.
NUT carcinoma is identified by the NUTM1 gene rearrangement.
NUT midline carcinomas (NMC) are lethal and morphologically indistinguishable from other poorly diff carcinomas. They are epithelial tumors which can range from undifferentiated carcinomas to carcinomas with prominent squamous differentiation.
A new proposed ICD-O-3 code has been suggested for NUT tumors but it is not yet approved for implementation. Do not use the new code until it is approved for use in the United States.
|
2016 | |
|
|
20160060 | Mets at diagnosis fields--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): How are Mets at Diagnosis -- Bone, Brain, Liver, Lung, Lymph Node, and Other -- to be coded for lymphomas in 2016? Are they always 0 if the TNM Stage is I, II, or III? How is bone marrow involvement coded -- in which Mets at Diagnosis field? |
Note: Answer verified Sept. 2019, still valid for current cases. Code all mets at diagnosis fields to 0 when the Stage is I, II, or III. When the lymphoma is Stage IV, one of the mets at dx fields (other than Mets at Dx-Distant lymph nodes) needs to be coded to 1. Stage IV indicates that there is multiple extralymphatic organ involvement, diffuse involvement of an organ; liver, brain, lung or bone involvement, or bone marrow involvement. For bone, brain, liver, and lung, code these as 1 when these sites are involved and they are not the primary site. This is the same instruction for solid tumor neoplasms. For mets at dx-distant lymph nodes, always code to 0. For lymphomas, lymph node involvement is included in stage and not based on whether they are regional or distant. For mets at dx-other, code to 1 for bone marrow involvement or if there is multi extralymphatic organ involvement. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160058 | First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are blood thinners, e.g., warfarin, coded as treatment in the Other Therapy data item for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome? See Discussion. |
Under the hematopoietic data base, treatment for polycythemia vera shows chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and phlebotomy. Essential thrombocytopenia shows blood thinners, anti-clotting medications, aspirin, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other therapy (Anagrelide) (for essential thrombocythemia only) and watchful waiting (for asymptomatic patients). Myelodysplastic syndrome shows bone marrow transplant, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and stem cell transplant.
SEER*RX under warfarin says: Per the 2012 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual (page 10), blood thinners and/or anti-clotting agents are to be coded as treatment (Other Therapy) for the following histologies: 9740/4 Mast cell sarcoma 9741/3 Systemic mastocytosis 9742/3 Mast cell leukemia 9875/3 Chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL 1 positive 9950/3 Polycythemia vera 9961/3 Primary myelofibrosis 9962/3 Essential thrombocythemia 9963/3 Chronic neutrophilic leukemia 9975/3 Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable. |
Based on information from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, aspirin and/or other blood thinners are not valid treatment for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome. These drugs are often given to relieve symptoms of the disease such as bone pain or side-effects of standard treatments including blood clots. The treatment information found on page 22 (2015 Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasms coding manual) will be updated and ICD-O-3 codes 9950/3 and 9975/3 will be removed from the list. SEER*RX has been updated to reflect this change. |
2016 |
|
|
20160064 | Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate. |
WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, "the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved." Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: " intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) ." So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate. |
2016 | |
|
|
20160048 | Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion. |
The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy:
-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template).
-Surgical margins free of tumor.
Kidney, right, nephrectomy:
Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)
Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified
Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)
Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney
Focality: Multifocal
Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm
Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4
Microscopic extent of tumor:
Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified
Renal sinus invasion: Not identified
Other: N/A
Renal vein involvement: Not identified
Adrenal gland present: No
Involved by tumor: N/A
Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A
Cancer at resection margin: Not identified
Location(s): N/A
Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells
Hilar lymph nodes present: No
Number of involved/number present: N/A
"Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with "mass #1" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and "mass #2" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation "renal tumor of oncocytosis" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence." |
Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave "in a malignant fashion." They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries. |
2016 |
|
|
20160045 | Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment "neoadjuvant treatment" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion. |
8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available. |
2016 |
|
|
20160034 | First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is donor leukocyte infusion for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms coded as a bone marrow transplant per the Hematopoetic Manual or as immunotherapy per SEER Inquiry System (SINQ) 20110048? See Discussion. |
In the Hematopoetic Manual, page 22, it is states: "The use of donor leukocyte infusions for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms, specifically leukemias, is increasing. Abstract as bone marrow transplant when a reportable hematopoietic neoplasm is treated with donor leukocyte infusion, even if it is not listed in the treatment section of the Heme db for the specific neoplasm." Question 20110048 in the SEER Inquiry, it is stated "Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy." Donor lymphocyte infusion and donor leukocyte infusions are the same procedure. Please clarify discrepancy as coding is needed for a case treated with donor lymphocytic infusion. |
Code donor lymphocyte infusion as immunotherapy. SINQ 20110048 is correct. The Hematopoietic Manual will be corrected during the next update. |
2016 |
An official website of the United States government
