Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20071046 | Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology? | The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology. The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis. The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item. The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list. |
2007 | |
|
20071108 | MP/H Rules--Ovary: Rule M7 states bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) are reportable as a single primary. Are bilateral germ cell tumors of the ovary (e.g., dysgerminoma (9060/3)) that occur simultaneously now reported as two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M7 applies to ovarian epithelial tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes between 8000 and 8799. Rule M7 does not apply to dysgerminoma which is coded to 9060. Go on to the next rule, M8 and abstract as multiple primaries, left and right. | 2007 | |
|
20071111 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion. | A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm. Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX. What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Abstract two primaries:
First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:
Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).
Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary. |
2007 |
|
20071094 | 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. | 2007 | |
|
20071052 | CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded if a lobectomy path specimen indicates that two intrapulmonary lymph nodes are involved by direct extension from the primary tumor? | 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 regional lymph node involvement in CS lymph nodes even when the lymph nodes are involved by direct extension. Do not code direct extension to lymph nodes in CS extension. |
2007 | |
|
20071083 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Is a non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed one year after the occurrence of an invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis reported as one or two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: This is a single primary with renal pelvis as primary site. Use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine if the 2007 diagnosis is a new primary. Use the Urinary rules, multiple tumors module. Start with rule M3. Follow the rules down to Rule M8 and stop. This is an example of implantation effect. |
2007 | |
|
20071057 | Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a lymphoma found in the spleen and retroperitoneal lymph nodes? See Discussion. | A patient presents with a 6-month history of night sweats, low grade fever and significant weight loss. Physical exam reveals no palpable lymph nodes, tender abdomen and splenomegaly. Patient undergoes an exploratory laparotomy with splenectomy and dissection of two retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Spleen and both lymph nodes were positive for small cleaved-cell lymphoma, high grade. | Code the primary site to spleen. Code CS extension as 22 [involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below the diaphragm]. This gives it a stage IIS. Spleen is an extranodal (not extralymphatic) site. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are located below the diaphragm. |
2007 |
|
20071114 | 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. |
2007 |
|
20071056 | 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. |
2007 |
|
20071066 | 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. |
2007 |