Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20180013 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are tuberous sclerosis cancers found in the brain reportable? See Discussion. |
I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis. |
SEGA (Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma) is reportable if diagnosed in 2004 or later. Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is not a neoplasm and is not reportable. SEGA is a neoplasm that commonly occurs in TSC patients. Refer to the reportability instructions on pages 5-7 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf |
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 |
|
|
20180089 | Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology. Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen. Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN). The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma. |
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 |
|
|
20180050 | Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis reportable? See Discussion. |
We noticed this term was added to the most recent version of the Heme Database (DB) as an alternate name for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; however we do not recall being notified that this was a new reportable term for code 9823 and the term was not included in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology updates. The Definition in the Heme DB for Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) includes information that the term was added in the 2016 WHO revision, thus would be reportable back to 2016, is that correct? In addition, the Definition seems to be describing it as a precursor condition to CLL and may never actually evolve into CLL, so it is unclear if this term should really be reportable. Example: 09/08/2016 Onc Note: A/P: monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL): I reviewed with him the results of the bone marrow biopsy. Interestingly, there is no evidence of abnormal plasma cell population by flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry. Nevertheless, flow cytometry does demonstrate a very small population of abnormal and monoclonal B-cell lymphocyte population with immunophenotype consistent with CLL/SLL. Given the very low number of the abnormal B cells, this can be categorized as monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). I recommend surveillance visit in one year. 9/12/2017 Onc note: A/P: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL) and IgM MGUS. No symptoms concerning for active disease or progression. Explained that MBL is a very indolent process. Patients with CLL-phenotype MBL progress to CLL at a rate of ~1-2 percent per year. Follow-up in 1 year. Is this case reportable? |
Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not a reportable condition. This term will be removed from 9823/3 since it is a /1 (has it's own code). This will become much more clear once we get the new WHO Heme terms into the database. |
2018 |
|
|
20180029 | Reportability--Skin: Is early/evolving lentigo maligna reportable? |
As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20180035 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted in this 2018 lung case? See Discussion. |
CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct? |
Abstract one primary per Rule M7. Follow the Lung Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries. The AJCC TNM manual is used for staging. Do not apply AJCC instructions to determine the number of primaries. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
