Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20180033 | Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) reportable? See Discussion. |
Spindled cell lesion of smooth muscle origin (desmin and SMA are positive, CD34, S100, pancytokeratin, Pax8, MDM2 and CDK4 are negative). Many of the cells have hyperchromatic, bizarre-shaped nuclei. Mitotic activity is inconspicuous. There are no areas of necrosis. The overall findings in this biopsy is best classified as a "STUMP"; however, a leiomyosarcoma cannot be excluded. |
STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) is not reportable. According to the WHO classification of uterine corpus tumors, the behavior code for STUMP is /1. |
2018 |
|
|
20180001 | Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion. |
The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date. The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery. |
Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields. |
2018 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20180076 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Where does cytology rank on the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology for Head and Neck primaries? See Discussion. |
Cytology is not listed in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology (Histology Coding Rules) in the Head and Neck schema. Other schemas do include cytology in the hierarchy below tissue from a biopsy or resection. Cytology is often less specific than histology, so one would expect cytology to be listed below tissue in this hierarchy. Was this an oversight? Or would cytology be equivalent to histology if it provided the most specific histology for the case? |
Instruction #5 in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Item 5.B., refers to cytology in the documentation though cytology is not listed before this. In H&N tumors, cytology is usually performed on lymph nodes and seldom on a primary tumor. Cytology will be added to H&N in the next update. |
2018 |
|
|
20180102 | Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion |
A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different. |
This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3. He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of "embryonal tumors" or within the category of "mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity. |
2018 |
|
|
20180031 | First Course of Treatment/Other Therapy: Where do you code Optune TTF therapy? What needs to be included in the text portion to document this treatment? |
Code OPTUNE in the Other Treatment field. See NovaTTF in SEER*Rx (http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/). NovaTTF is the pre-FDA approval name for OPTUNE. If OPTUNE was administered for recurrence, be sure NOT to record it in the first course of treatment fields. Check with CoC if you have questions about coding treatment for recurrence. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180019 | Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion. |
The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported. Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations? 1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1). 2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children. 3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state. |
Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information. Examples 1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation. The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors. 2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1. 3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2. Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license. |
2018 |
|
|
20180022 | Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion. |
Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area. |
Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only. |
2018 |
|
|
20180082 | Summary Stage Manual 2018 "Lymphoma: SEER Summary Stage 2000 states: For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement and is used to determine the number and location of lymph node chains involved (see lymphoma scheme). This statement is not in SEER Summary Stage 2018. Does that mean we follow rules #4-7, pages 14-15, under Code 3: Regional Lymph Nodes only, for every site, including lymphoma? |
The following statement "Any mention of the terms including fixed, matted, mass in the hilum, mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and/or mesentery, palpable, enlarged, shotty, lymphadenopathy are all regarded as involvement for lymphomas when determining appropriate code," is included in EOD Primary Tumor and is applicable to Summary Stage 2018. The statement will be added as note 4 to the Lymphoma Summary Stage chapter. This will be included in the 2019 update (estimated release January 2019). |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
