Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20180101 | Histology--Kidney: What is the histology code for renal cell clear cell of the kidney with subsequent epithelioid angiomyolipoma PEComa of the liver stated to be metastatic? Case originaly diagnosed in 2016. See discussion. |
This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor. |
Revise the histology code for the 2016 diagnosis based on the review of slides performed in 2018. When new information becomes available, the information in the abstract can be updated. PEComa is a synonym for epithelioid angiomyolipoma (8860/1). These tumors can be malignant with local recurrence and or mets. For a pre-2018 diagnosis, code histology to 8860/3 using the ICD-O-3 Rule F, aka: Matrix principle. |
2018 |
|
|
20180016 | Primary site--Pancreas: Is the uncinate process of the pancreas coded to C259, C250, or C257? |
Assign C250 to the uncinate process of the pancreas. The uncinate process is part of the head of the pancreas. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180043 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: Can the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol be used to determine whether in situ tumor is present for the purpose of determining which H Rule applies in the example presented? See Discussion. |
The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used? Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions, |
Apply Rule H12 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer, released April 2019. Remember the protocol is a checklist only and should not be used to code histology unless it is the only document available. |
2018 |
|
|
20180093 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: What is the histology and number of primaries for a lung case diagnosed in 2018 with adenocarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern on biopsy, and subsequent lobectomy showing adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern? Should this be coded as one primary with an adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3) histology since we cannot use pattern or predominant, based on the histologic type listed in the synoptic report, and the fact it states synchronous primary tumors in the same lobe. See Discussion. |
02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern 04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern Synoptic report: Procedure: Lobectomy Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor Tumor Site: Upper lobe Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm) Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0 Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12 Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition) Primary Tumor (pT): pT3 Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0 |
This is a single primary per Lung rule M7. First determine the histology for each tumor. Both tumors are coded 8140/3 because the histologies are a PATTERN. Reference: Coding Multiple Histologies (precedes histology rules) Instruction 2 says do not code pattern . If the word pattern was not in the diagnosis, you would code the specific histology. |
2018 |
|
|
20180069 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion. |
Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade. |
There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior. The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present. |
2018 |
|
|
20180034 | Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion. |
In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol? |
Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it. WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20180056 | Primary Site--Ovary: 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 |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Based on the information provided, this is a 2018 diagnosis. SEER has been asked to postpone implementing the instruction about using the date of the ambiguous cytology until 2019 or later. We will be removing that instruction from the draft 2018 SEER manual when it is finalized. |
2018 | |
|
|
20180012 | First course of treatment: What is the correct code to use for allogenic stem cell transplant? |
Code an allogenic stem cell transplant as 20 (Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion) in Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures in the 2016 SEER Manual. |
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 |
An official website of the United States government
