Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170036 | Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion. |
Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows: Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7 Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7 Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8 Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10 Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores. The prostate-related fields include: Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy |
When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields. Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1 Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2 Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2 Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3 Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3 |
2017 |
|
|
20170045 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is meningioangiomatosis reportable as meningiomatosis (9530/1) or angiomatous meningioma (9534/0)? See Discussion. |
Pathology report: Brain tumor, left side: Gliotic cortex and subcortical white matter with meningioangiomatosis (see Comment). Comment This specimen represents a meningioangiomatous lesion located in the leptomeninges that projects along the Virchow-Robin spaces into the underlying cortex. The surrounding brain parenchyma demonstrates reactive changes with astrogliosis and microgliosis. An intraparenchymal neoplasm is not seen. Meningioangiomatosis is a rare benign meningovascular hamartomatous condition and usually appears in young patients. |
Meningioangiomatosis is not reportable. It is a cortical lesion which may occur sporadically or in NF2 (neurofibromatosis type 2). It is not listed in ICD-O-3. |
2017 |
|
|
20180095 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term "predominant" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say "See Synoptic" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion. |
Examples Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report) |
The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term "predominant" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one "predominant" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7. |
2018 |
|
|
20180066 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How is laterality coded for bilateral non-malignant central nervous system (CNS) or malignant CNS tumors now that laterality is no longer used to identify these tumors as multiple primaries? See Discussion. |
The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied? Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign? |
Determine whether the CNS tumors are single or multiple primaries. Multiple cerebral meningiomas are a single primary according to the non-malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Assign laterality using the 2018 SEER Manual for select invasive, benign, and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors using codes 1-9 for all sites listed in the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table. In the example, assign code 4, bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary. The solid tumor rules are not a one-stop-shop for all coding. Refer to the appropriate coding manual for laterality. We removed laterality for determining multiple primaries in meningiomas as they were being over-reported according to CBTRUS. |
2018 |
|
|
20180002 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion. |
12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1) 1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1 11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma 5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma 10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter |
For cases diagnosed prior to 2018 This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case. To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf |
2018 |
|
|
20180056 | 2018 SEER Manual/Primary Site--Ovary, Fallopian Tube: How should primary site be coded for a previously diagnosed ovarian cancer which is now being reclassified as fallopian tube? See Discussion. |
There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries? |
Do not change the primary site in this situation. Since the review was done for a clinical trial and the change was not officially made in the patient's medical record, the primary site remains ovary for the cancer registry. Add an explanatory note in a text field for future reference. |
2018 |
|
|
20180064 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion. |
A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct? |
This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis. |
2018 |
|
|
20180045 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion. |
For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting? |
In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under "Additional Pathologic Findings." The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology. When there are multiple histologies and 1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or 2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes) Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer. |
2018 |
|
|
20180112 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), NOS as this is not on the AJCC list of histologies? See Discussion. |
A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post? |
Code NSCLC to 8046/3. Do not change a histology code simply to assign TNM to the case. AJCC does not determine histology coding. While pathologists are no longer encouraged to use NSCLC, it does not mean the term and code are obsolete. NSCLC could be any number of histologies such as adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma. A diagnosis of NSCLC indicates that the initial exam of the tissue did not identify a more specific type of NSCLC. Additional immunohistochemical testing is needed to determine the histology. Update the case if better information becomes available from subsequent tests/review. When analyzing the data, researchers and physicians will be able to identify the cases where the pathologist was unable to or did not perform further testing to determine a specific histology which drives treatment and survival. |
2018 |
|
|
20180037 | Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy? |
Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
