Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.
The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.
Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.
Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.
Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...
This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.
The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Regarding rule H15, is the mixed code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] used when there are subtypes of these histologies described, such as a tumor diagnosed with follicular and papillary microcarcinoma or should 8341 [Papillary microcarcinoma] be used?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For coding purposes, this is a papillary and follicular combination that would be coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant].
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.
MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of "pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components"? Please see discussion.
Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: "While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma."
This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma.
"Components" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5.
Reporting Source: If the only patient record available for a physician office biopsy is the pathology report identified from a freestanding laboratory, is reporting source coded to 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)] or 4 [Physicians office/Private Medical Practitioner (LMD)]? See Discussion.
A case was identified through a pathology report from a freestanding lab. The doctor who submitted the specimen left the state. His records cannot be located. Because the patient had the specimen removed at a physician's office, not at a path lab, is Type of Reporting Source field coded to the physicians office?
Reporting Source is the source that provided the best information used to abstract the case.
For this case, assign code 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)]. Reporting source should reflect the lab where this case was identified. The MD office added nothing to the case, not even a confirmation of malignancy.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.
Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.
The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].
MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:
No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.
Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable?
Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home