Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
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 Tumor Size--Lung/Breast: Explain why the SEER instructions differ from the CS Manual regarding priority order of sources to code tumor size? See Discussion.
Regarding the 2004 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Site Specific Coding Modules, Lung and Breast. The priority of sources for coding tumor size is Pathology, Operative Report, PE, imaging for breast and pathology, operative, endoscopic, and imaging for lung. This differs from the CS Manual instructions.
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 in 2007 and forward, follow the instructions in the 2007 SEER manual and the CS manual.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.
Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"
A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."
These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.
According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?
Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ disease?
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 CS tumor size 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Is a "composite mucinous adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma" coded to 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or should 8480 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be coded rather than 8070 [squamous carcinoma] because mucinous adenocarcinoma is a higher histology code than squamous carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, the mix of adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is adenosquamous carcinoma. Adenosquamous tumors are rare, but known, representing 3-4% of pancreatic carcinomas.
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 Reg LN Pos/Exam: Are lymph nodes coded as positive or negative when the pathology report for a lymph node dissection performed after radiation and chemo reveals that the nodes are negative but they demonstrated previous involvement by cancer? See Discussion.
Scenario: The patient was treated with radiation and chemotherapy prior to resection for esophageal cancer. The pathology report stated, "1/3 nodes c/w treated previous ca."
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.Record lymph nodes that are pathologically confirmed as positive in Regional Nodes Positive. Evidence of previous involvement by cancer is not recorded in this data item.
In the above scenario, the lymph nodes are negative according to pathology.
Clinically positive lymph nodes are coded in CS Lymph Nodes.
CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Corpus uteri: Is a microscopic metastasis in a cul-de-sac implant more appropriately reflected in the CS Extension field code 80 [Further contiguous extension; cul-de-sac] or in the CS Mets at Dx field code 40 [Distant metastasis]?
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.Assign code 80 [Further contiguous extension; Cul de sac] for CS extension in this case. Endometrium and ovary are exceptions to the rules that only contiguous extension is coded in Extension code 80. Only true distant metastases are coded in Mets at Dx.
An official website of the United States government
Home