Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190061 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion. |
The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case. However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case. |
Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor. For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast. Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply. Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors. Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression. Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual. |
2019 |
|
|
20190043 | Diagnostic Confirmation: How is Diagnostic Confirmation coded for malignancies diagnosed by a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay involving circulating tumor DNA in blood only? See Discussion. |
Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC. |
Code Diagnostic Confirmation as 7, Radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation for this case. Results of a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay are not specific enough to diagnose this lung malignancy. |
2019 |
|
|
20190045 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with a right lateral tongue (C023) tumor in 2016 that was verrucous carcinoma (8051), followed by a new left tongue border (C021) tumor in 2019 that was squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070)? See Discussion. |
According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075). Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3). |
Accession a single primary based on the 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M13 as none of the other rules apply to the situation. Not all histology codes are contained in the tables in the Solid Tumor Rules as they list the more common histologies. Verrucous carcinoma is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma according to Table 3 of the Rules. Solid Tumor rule tables are based on 4th Ed WHO Blue Books. Verrucous SCC is not included in oral cavity/mobile tongue chapter. |
2019 |
|
|
20190080 | Update to current manual/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes--Melanoma: Can the operative report be used to assess margins if there is no residual melanoma on the wide excision and no margins stated, or if distance is not stated on the pathology report when there is residual melanoma? See Discussion. |
1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins? 2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell? 3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now. |
1. You may take margin information from the operative report if it is missing from the pathology report when assigning the surgery codes for skin.
2. The rule applies to any skin malignancy for which the skin surgery codes apply. 3. SEER, CoC, NPCR, NCRA, NAACCR, and the Canadian registries participated in this decision. SEER is publishing this SINQ question for reference. |
2019 |
|
|
20190016 | Update to current manual/SS2018--Breast: Should Code 3 of the Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for Breast designate the intramammary and infraclavicular lymph nodes as being ipsilateral? Similarly, should Code 7 designate infraclavicular lymph nodes as contralateral/bilateral? Laterality (ipsilateral, contralateral/bilateral) is included for axillary and internal mammary nodes in the respective codes. |
Based on your question, a review of the AJCC manual was done to clarify how these nodes would be coded. A review of Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes and EOD Mets was also done. That information is correct and in line with AJCC 8th edition. We apologize that SS2018 was not updated accordingly and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Per AJCC, infraclavicular and intramammary nodes are ipsilateral for the N category. Contralateral or bilateral involvement are included in the M category. The following will be applied to the planned 2020 update of the SS2018 manual. Code 3 Ipsilateral will be added to Infraclavicular and Intramammary Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (ipsilateral) Intramammary (ipsilateral) Code 7 The following will be added under Distant lymph nodes Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (contralateral or bilateral) Intramammary (contralateral or bilateral) |
2019 | |
|
|
20190075 | Sex: How should the sex field be coded for the newly allowable non-binary gender designation ? See Discussion. |
Washington State added to birth certificates, which allows people to have their certificates changed to this non-binary gender designation. Gender X is defined as a gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to: intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified. |
Code Gender X as 9 when that is the only information available. Use text fields to document the details. Also refer to coding instruction #7. When gender is not known Assign code 1 when the primary site is C600 'C639 Assign code 2 when the primary site is C510 'C589 Assign code 9 for primary sites not included above |
2019 |
|
|
20190032 | Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion. |
Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded. Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung. Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant. No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options. Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0. |
Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer. To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor. |
2019 |
|
|
20190018 | Histology--Thyroid: Should any mention of encapsulated be included in the histology coding (8343/3 vs. 8260/3) for papillary thyroid carcinoma cases? See Discussion. |
Example: Left thyroid lobectomy with final diagnosis When the only mention of encapsulation is included in the tumor characteristics of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary, not the pathologist's choice of histologic type, what is the preferred histology? |
Assign 8343/3 for encapsulated variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. If the pathology report is not available, use the histologic type in addition to other information in the CAP Protocol. |
2019 |
|
|
20190025 | 2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Colon: What is the histology code of a diagnosis of well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), grade 2 of the appendix? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249. Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding. Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2. |
Assign histology code 8249 for histology described as well differentiated NET G2. A synonym for NET of the appendix includes well-differentiated endocrine tumor/carcinoma according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System, 4th edition. "Well differentiated" could apply to either NET G1 or NET G2. |
2019 |
|
|
20190096 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion. |
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. |
Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa. The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present. |
2019 |
An official website of the United States government
