Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: In a patient with Muir Torre syndrome, should each of 12 sebaceous carcinomas diagnosed from 1994-2005 be a new primary or should this process be one primary diagnosed in 1994?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Follow the rules in the 2004 manual for determining multiple primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are in different sites (topography code difference in the first two numeric digits after the C), they are separate primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are more than two months apart, they are separate primaries.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion.
MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.
However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.
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.
CS Extension--Pancreas, Head: When a tumor is described as having "vascular encasement of the celiac artery", is extension coded to 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis]?
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 vascular encasement of the celiac artery to CS extension code 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis].
This celiac axis is a small (1cm) area of branching arteries. The celiac artery branches into hepatic, gastric, and splenic at the axis. Dissecting tumor out from around the celiac axis is very tricky and usually encasement by tumor is a sign of inoperability.
CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: If the lymph nodes listed in codes 10 and 20 were contralateral or bilateral, and the only description was "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" on mediastinoscopy or x-ray, is this field coded to 60? See Discussion.
(CS Manual page 407) Note 2: If at mediastinoscopy/x-ray, the description is "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" of any lymph nodes named as regional in codes 10 and 20, assume that at least regional lymph nodes were involved.
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.
Yes. The named nodes listed in codes 10 or 20 should be coded 60 if the "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" on mediastinscopy or x-ray is described as bilateral or contralateral.
Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion.
SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.
CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: Do modifying terms such as "borderline" affect whether lymph nodes are coded as involved when they are used in conjunction with the descriptors listed in Note 2 (i.e., mass, adenopathy or enlargement) for lung primaries? See Discussion.
Lung primary: CT states "borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes. Note 2 in the Lung schema under CS Lymph Nodes does not address qualifiers.
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.
Do not code the hilar lymph nodes as involved in this case. "Borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes do not meet the clinical criteria for enlargement.
Reportability: Is a tumor reported as "neoplasm" or "neoplasia" per the pathology report, which is subsequently clinically referred to as "carcinoma" reportable? See Discussion.
Example 1: Lung-Wedge resection and subsequent left lower lobe lobectomy showed papillary epithelial neoplasia. Tumor board and subsequent reports state "nonsmall cell carcinoma of lung."
Example 2: Kidney-Partial nephrectomy showed epithelial neoplasm, clear cells with low grade cytology. Subsequent urology clinic notes state that path revealed clear cell renal carcinoma.
2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." Do we also accession the case if primary site has been resected? Would diagnostic confirmation be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)?
Accession the case and code Diagnostic Confirmation as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Accession a case with negative pathology when the clinician is aware of the negative pathology and continues to refer to the case as malignant.
CS Lymph Nodes--Esophagus: Is a resected positive "periesophageal nodule" coded as an involved lymph node for an esophagus primary? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20000846: Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node. SINQ 2000846 applied to EOD. Can this concept be used for Collaborative Stage?
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.
For cases diagnosed on or after January 1, 2004:
Search for additional information on the "nodule." Review the gross and microscopic descriptions to determine whether or not the nodule is a lymph node. If it is not possible to obtain further information, apply the downstaging rule and select the Extension or LN code that results in the lower category.
Reportability: Is a "pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumor of soft parts (PHAT)" reportable if the case has a TNM stage assigned and is stated by the pathologist to be a rare intermediate grade sarcoma?
Pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumors of the soft parts are not reportable.
According to our pathologist consultant, PHAT is a borderline malignancy (/1). While the true nature of these tumors is under debate (reactive vs. neoplastic), so far none have metastasized.
Reportability--Melanoma: Is the final diagnosis for an excisional skin biopsy of "compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression" reportable if a re-excision may be clinically indicated because there is an "overlap of morphology between malignant melanoma and nevi with severe atypia, and there's evidence of regression"?
Compound nevus with severe atypia is not reportable unless also stated to be malignant melanoma or melanoma in situ.
An official website of the United States government
Home