Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20041024 | Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable? |
No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer. |
2004 | |
|
20041049 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is best used to represent a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma, matrix producing type." The tumor shows poorly differentiated infiltrating duct carcinoma and myxoid, cartilaginous stroma. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, metaplastic carcinoma is a type of epithelial breast tumor. Matrix producing carcinoma is a synonym of metaplastic carcinoma. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for matrix producing carcinoma.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2004 | |
|
20041084 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is thisĀ one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual. Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077]. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2004 | |
|
20041071 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion. | Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)? Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy. First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2004 |
|
20041093 | Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? | If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. | 2004 | |
|
20041012 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Colon: What is the number of primaries for a case of familial polyposis with at least three separate tumors having invasive adenocarcinoma, one in the rectum? See Discussion. | A patient had a total proctocolectomy and was found to have familial polyposis. At least 3 separate tumors were identified with invasive adenocarcinoma, one of which was in the rectum. Is this 2 primaries: C18.9 with 8220/3 and C20.9 with 8140/3 or is this all one primary cancer? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Familial polyposis is always a single primary. Code the primary site for the case example above to C199 [colon and rectum].
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules. |
2004 |
|
20041076 | CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion. | Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)". Would these examples be coded to 46? Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3. Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3. |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Code 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ. Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist. |
2004 |
|
20041026 | CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion. | The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm. | If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.
Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size. |
2004 |
|
20041013 | Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: Should this field be coded to ovary or peritoneum when the bulk of the tumor is in the peritoneum and there is only surface involvement of the ovary? | If it is not clear where the tumor originated, use the following criteria to distinguish ovarian primaries from peritoneal primaries. The primary site is probably ovarian, unless: --Ovaries have been previously removed --Ovaries are not involved (negative) --Ovaries have no area of involvement greater than 5mm. Descriptions such as "bulky mass," "omental caking" probably indicate an ovarian primary. Descriptions such as "seeding," "studding," "salting" probably indicate a peritoneal primary. |
2004 | |
|
20041089 | Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia, grade 2 reportable? See Discussion. |
Path report reads: Lobular neoplasia, grade 2.
According to the AFIP nomenclature for DCIS (taken from the WHO terminology), this would be the equivalent of LCIS. But nowhere can I find this specifically applies to lobular in the same way that ductal neoplasia is treated. |
According to the editors of ICD-O-3, lobular neoplasia grade 2 is not equivalent to LCIS. It is not a reportable term. Lobular neoplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia are equivalent terms having a three grade system. Only LN/LIN grade 3 would be reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3. |
2004 |