Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Langerhans cell histiocytosis [9751/1] of the meninges [C709] reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. The criteria for reportable benign/borderline CNS tumors is based on location (site) and behavior (benign/borderline). There is no caveat for histologic type. Therefore, this would be reportable as these tumors have been reported arising from the meninges or choroid plexus.
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.
CS Lymph Nodes: Are positive right superficial inguinal lymph nodes coded to 30 (which is the case for anal canal primaries) or 31 (which is the case for anus primaries) if the primary is stated to be in the "cloacogenic zone" or is an anorectal primary?
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 30 for positive unilateral superficial inguinal lymph nodes for cloacogenic primaries. The cloacogenic zone is part of the anal canal.
CS Extension--Head & Neck: If a 2 cm left tonsil primary extends to the lateral aspect of the soft palate, should extension be coded to 40 [Soft palate, inferior surface including uvula or soft palate NOS] or 42 [Soft palate, superior (nasopharyngeal) surface] for a tonsil primary?
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.
Extension code 40 is for extension from the tonsil to the back (lower) part of the soft palate, or soft palate, NOS. Code 42 is for extension to the front (higher, nasopharyngeal surface) part of the soft palate.
Inferior soft palate is the back (lower) part of the soft palate (C051). Superior soft palate is the front, (nasopharyngeal surface) of the soft palate (C113).
Chemotherapy: If a physician does not document the reason chemotherapy was given concurrently with radiation therapy, should it be assumed to have been used as a radiosensitizer or radioprotectant and then, per SEER chemotherapy coding instruction 2, ignore coding the chemo agent as treatment?
Do not assume that a chemo agent given with radiation therapy is a radiosensitizer. Seek additional information.
Compare the dose given to the dose normally given for treatment. When chemotherapeutic agents are used as radiosensitizers or radioprotectants, they are given at a much lower dose.
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 Site Specific Factor/Melanoma: How is CS SSF1 (depth of invasion) coded for a melanoma that demonstrates dermal invasion to a depth of "less than .2 mm" be coded to 999 [unknown]? See Discussion.
The path report says "superficial spreading malignant melanoma; 2 areas of papillary dermal invasion to depth of less than .2mm."
The revised CS pages include codes for "less than" a certain tumor size, but these are not included in the depth of invasion SSF. Using 999 results in an unstageable melanoma, when we know it is "less than .2mm".
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 SSF1 (depth of invasion) to 019 [.19mm]. For any case with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm, the T category will be determined using CS extension and SSF2 [ulceration]. All cases with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm will map to a T1 (either T1NOS, T1a or T1b).
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.
Histology--CLL/SLL: What is the correct histology code for a lymph node described in the pathology report comment section as "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia"? See Discussion.
Current rules instruct us to select the lymphoma code for lymph node and/or tissue with the dual diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. We have a cervical lymph node biopsy with that dual diagnosis, however, the pathology comment states that after immunohistochemistry testing, the lymph node is "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia." No bone marrow or blood work-up is performed.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma. The current rules have not changed. Code to lymphoma because the diagnosis was made on a lymph node.
"Phenotypically consistent" means the lymph node contains CLL/SLL, not some other hematopoietic or metastatic disease.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.
An official website of the United States government
Home