SEER Inquiry System - Search

1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of

Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?

2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of

Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?

3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.

Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.

Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?

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?

Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.

Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.

Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?

Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.

We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?

Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.

1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass

2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.

Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder.

How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation?

Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside.

Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology?

Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.

The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.

Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:

--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR

--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.

This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?