System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 08/27/2024 22:19 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071009 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion. MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities. 2007
20071127 Multiplicity Counter--Breast: How should the multiplicity counter be coded for a 3.8 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma with two "satellite nodules" measuring 5 mm and 7mm that are not described as either metastases or multiple foci? Include these nodules in the multiplicity counter because they are measured and are part of the final diagnosis on the pathology report. 2007
20071003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: If a patient is stated to have prostate "cancer" but a pathology report is not available nor is a specific histology stated in the medical record, can this histology be coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma] instead of 8000/3 [cancer] because the vast majority of prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas?

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the correct histology code is 8000/3 [cancer]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histology rules because no specific rules have been developed for prostate primaries.

To determine the histology, start at the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Code the histology documented by the physician when there is no pathology/cytology specimen or the pathology/cytology report is not available. Code the histology as 8000/3 [cancer] because that is the only available information. In the absence of a pathology report or any other histologic confirmation, code the histology based on the information available.

2007
20071016 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.

M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:

  • papillary carcinoma [8050]

  • transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]

  • papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]

    • Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.

    		 2007
    		20071036 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Is a "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" coded to 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] per the ICD-O-3 because it lists "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" as a synonym for that code or should it be coded to 8050 [Papillary carcinoma, NOS]? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260 [papilary carcinoma of the thyroid]. 2007
    		20071092 Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is a chondroma, NOS or a chondroblastoma, NOS that occurs in an intracranial site or along the spinal cord reportable? See Discussion.

    In ICD-O-3, chondroma and chondroblastoma are site-associated morphologies for bone. If a chondroma or a chondroblastoma occurs along the spinal cord, is this one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default site to bone and not to spinal cord?

    Reference: ICD-O-3; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004; SINQ 20021152

    Chondroma, NOS or chondroblastoma, NOS occuring in intracranial sites or along the spinal cord are not reportable.

    Chondroma, NOS and chonroblastoma, NOS are benign tumors of the bone itself, not the intracranial contents.

    		 2007
    		20071124 Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion. For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor? If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors. 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
    		20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

    The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

    Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

    Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

    		 2007
    		20071041

    Reportability/Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is pyridoxine-responsive sideroblastic anemia (SA) reportable and is pyridoxine coded as chemotherapy for SA and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS)? See Discussion.

    Patient has refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts on bone marrow path. The physician mentions it might be due to pyridoxine deficiency. Per the SEER*Rx, pyridoxine (aka Vitamin B6) is not coded as treatment. What causes RARS and SA? Is pyridoxine treatment for either disease process? Or is the pyridoxine just treating one aspect of the anemia? The patient has no other treatment but this.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal.

    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.

    		 2007