Reportability--Skin: Is a pilomatrix carcinoma of the skin reportable if it is described as being a malignant diagnosis based on poor circumscription, infiltrative growth pattern, and focal abundant mitoses?
No. Pilomatrix carcinoma is not reportable to SEER. Please see page 1 of the 2004 SEER manual. Skin primaries with histology codes from 8090 to 8110 are not reportable. Pilomatrix carcinoma is coded 8110/3.
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--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.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion.
5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is one primary.
Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): Is an intra-abdominal mass with the histology of "squamous cell carcinoma arising in a dermoid cyst" coded to 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma] or 9084/3 [Dermoid cyst with malignant transformation]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 9084/3 [Dermoid cyst with malignant transformation] per the ICD-O-3. Dermoid cysts may contain a malignant component of a type typically encountered in other organs and tissues.
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.
Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1?
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy.
CS Extension--Bladder: Can the physician TNM be viewed as a clarifying statement when it provides information not documented elsewhere in medical record as in the example of a pathology report for bladder primary that demonstrates extension into bladder muscle, NOS but the physician documented TNM notes a more definitive T code for depth of muscle invasion? See Discussion.
In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:
"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).
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, you may code CS extension using the physician assigned "T" when it provides information not found elsewhere in the medical record.
CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets?
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.
The Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites.
An official website of the United States government
Home