MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.
Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.
Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.
Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be recorded in a patient with von Hippel Lindau disease that has a hemangioblastoma of the cerebellum in 2003 and a hemangioblastoma of the brainstem in 2007?
A tumor of the cerebellum (C716) and a tumor of the brainstem (C717) are multiple primaries because the topography codes are different at the fourth character of site.
Flag: For cases diagnosed prior to 2001, how is the ICD-O-3 Conversion Flag set if the ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 histology and behavior fields are both directly coded, as registrars in this region are instructed to do when submitting late cases, and as a result no conversion is necessary? Is it to 0 [Morphology (Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-3 originally coded in ICD-O-3)] or Blank [Not converted]?
Assign code 3 [converted with review].
In your scenario above, ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 are being independently coded which should yield the same result as converting the case and then reviewing it.
Otherwise, if there is an ICD-O-3 code which differs from the ICD-O-3 code based on the conversion criteria, it will trigger an edit.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Should code 51 (Modified radical mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast) be used when a patient has excisional biopsy (22) and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast (41) as part of the first course of treatment?
Assign code 51 or 52 if a patient has an excisional biopsy and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy during the first course of therapy. Code the cumulative result of the surgeries, which is a modified radical mastectomy in this case.
SEER collects only one surgery code per case. Code the most invasive, extensive or definitive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion.
In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?
Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.
If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.
Reportability--Breast: Is a final path diagnosis of "phyllodes tumor, borderline (malignant, low grade)" reportable if the comment states "Features favor the diagnosis of a borderline phyllodes tumor (or also called malignant phyllodes tumor of low grade)"?
No, borderline phyllodes tumors (PT) are not reportable. The ICD-O-3 code is 9020/1. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, borderline PT's are also called low grade malignant PT's.
MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion.
Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer.
Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.
The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.
The instructions are:
If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as
apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.
Example:
Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].
An official website of the United States government
Home