Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer (Ascending) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20130218 | ||||
| 20041038 | Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER? | "Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable. | ||
| 20051026 | Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: What surgery code is used to reflect the amputation of a finger for subungual melanoma? | 47 [Wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins greater than 2cm] is the correct surgery code for amputation of a finger for melanoma. | ||
| 20120020 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma.
Are these microscopic foci of DCIS considered a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting. |
The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma".
If the pathologist considers the expression "ductal (tubular)" to be the equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2].
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are: Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.
Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2.
Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3.
Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, considered multiple primaries.
If the pathologist considers the expression "ductal (tubular)" to be the equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3].
For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma.
Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. |
|
| 20110073 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion. |
1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.
4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)
7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.
Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority? |
this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."
The steps used to arrive at this answer are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.
Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.
Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule. |
|
| 20140070 | Reportability--Pancreas: Is this reportable? Is this benign? If reportable, what histology code and behavior code should be used? A final pathology diagnosis reads: "Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)". |
"Cystic pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (CPEN)" is reportable. Assign 8150/3 based on the information provided. We consulted our expert pathologist and he states "Since metastases have been reported in a few, and all the rest of the pancreatic endocrine tumors are now designated malignant, …we are safe considering them /3 until proven otherwise. Since most of them are non-functioning, [assign code] 8150/3 unless specified as to G1 (8240/3) or G2 (8249/3)." |
||
| 20150014 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" is reportable? See discussion. |
The MRI states "Lhermitte-Duclos disease" but does not include "dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum"; is this the same as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)"? |
"Lhermitte-Duclos disease" alone can be interpreted as "Lhermitte-Duclos dysplastic gangliocytoma of cerebellum (C716)" and reportable. The WHO classification for CNS tumors lists this entity as "Dysplastic gangliocytoma of the cerebellum (Lhermitte-Duclos disease)" signifying that the terms are used synonymously. |
|
| 20051079 | Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be considered reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable? | "Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable. The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer. |
||
| 20081033 | Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094? | "Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term. Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant." |
||
| 20150001 | Reportability/Histology: Would a histology reading "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix be reportable? Since the word "tumor NOS" and "neoplasm NOS" both code to 8000, I would assume they would be interchangeable but just wanted to verify. According to SINQ 20130027 & 20140002 a "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix IS reportable. |
"Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is reportable. According to the WHO classification of Digestive System Tumors, "Well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm" of the appendix is synonymous with NET. WHO states on page 13 "The term 'neuroendocrine neoplasm' can be used synonymously with 'neuroendocrine tumor.'" Neuroendocrine "tumor," or NET G1, is listed in the WHO classification as one of the malignant neoplasms of the appendix. |
