"Question ID","Question","Discussion","Answer","Year" "20240023","
Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Penis: Why is warty carcinoma listed in Other Sites, Table 23 (Penis and Scrotum Histologies) as 8051 when the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003 indicate the correct histology is 8054 for this neoplasm? See Discussion.
","The ICD-O-3.2 indicates histology 8051 only applies to diagnoses of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma made prior to 2018. For penis cases diagnosed 2018 and later, these neoplasms should be coded as 8054. This is consistent with SINQ 20200003.
However, a new Table was added to the Other Sites schema in the 2024 Solid Tumor Rules update. Table 23 lists “Verrucous carcinoma / carcinoma cuniculatum / Warty carcinoma” as histology 8051. While verrucous carcinoma is still listed under histology 8051 in the ICD-O-3.2, warty carcinoma is not.
Does Table 23 need to be updated? Or is this an error in both the ICD-O-3.2 and SINQ 20200003?
","Assign histology code 8054/3 for warty carcinoma. Assign 8051/3 for verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma cuniulatum.
The WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition (2022) revised the terminology for squamous cell carcinoma groupings from ""non-HPV-related"" to ""HPV-independent"" and from ""HPV-related to ""HPV-associated"". Warty carcinoma is defined as a ""morphologically distinct HPV-associated verruciform neoplasm that shares histological features with a giant condyloma but has definitive cytological atypia and a malignant infiltrative architecture."" Verrucous carcinoma (including carcinoma cuniculatum) is defined as an HPV-independent squamous cell carcinoma, and is correctly coded to 8051/3.
The 2024 Solid Tumor Rules, Table 23, Penis and Scrotum Histologies will be updated to reflect this revised terminology and coding.
","2024" "20240009","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology --Brain and CNS: Why is high grade astrocytoma with piloid features (HGAP) not grouped together with the other astrocytoma histologies as a subtype/variant of astrocytoma? See Discussion.
","It appears there was some confusion about finding this new malignant HGAP tumor (2023+) code. If this is not a specific subtype/variant of astrocytoma, can clarification be added to the “New for 2023” entry for HGAP?
","HGAP is listed as a separate classification and is not a subtype of the diffuse gliomas. WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 5th edition, has two categories dealing with non-pediatric astrocytic tumors:
Adult-type diffuse gliomas
Circumscribed astrocytic tumors
HGAP falls into the second category as a result of updates to the 4th edition WHO classification in 2016 with advances in the role of molecular diagnostics with the 5th edition. All astrocytic tumors were previously grouped together whereas not all diffuse gliomas (astrocytic or not) are grouped together on the basis of growth pattern and behaviors, and shared IDH1 and IDH2 genetic status. The new classification separates astrocytomas that have a more circumscribed growth pattern, lack IDH gene alterations, and sometimes have BRAF mutations (i.e., pilocytic astrocytoma). The impact of molecular advances has driven classification changes as described in the 5th edition.
Review of site/histologiy combinations for CNS neoplasms is currently being performed by Cancer PathCHART experts. It's possible they will recommend HGAP be moved to a subtype/variant of astrocytoma, NOS.
","2024" "20240008","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the term “diffuse” be added to Note 2 in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Solid Tumor Rules, Table 6: Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants, for the papillary glioneuronal tumor 9509/1? See Discussion.
","Should Note 2 state, ""Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 forward, diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor is coded 9509/3? See the Malignant CNS rules."" Currently the Note only states, ""leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor,"" but the histology that changed behavior is listed in both Table 6, Column 1 (Non-Malignant CNS) and Table 3 (Malignant CNS) as, ""Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor.""
","The correct term is diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumor listed as a synonym in Column 2.
We will add the term diffuse in Note 2, Column 1 with the 2025 updates. In the meantime, you can add ""diffuse"" to your pdf version until the update is published.
","2024" "20240007","Histology--Brain and CNS: Provide clarification about the priority order of histology coding sources and an explanation of why the annotated histology lists are not the same as the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 Excel Table (adopted 1/1/2021). See Discussion.
","We have had multiple users unable to find the applicable histology in the ICD-O-3.2 (i.e., the site-specific table did not include the histology) because they were using the annotated histology list and could not find the complete list of related terms or synonyms for the histology code.
For example, the ICD-O-3.2 lists Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS as a related term for 9471/3, but many users were unable to find this valid histology because they were using the annotated histology list, not the ICD-O-3.2.
","The NAACCR Annotated Histology List (AL) serves as an aid to registry software vendors for implementing annual histology changes. This file has been maintained by the Registry Plus team at CDC’s NPCR for several years and reflects modifications to ICD-O-3 implemented by North American cancer registries over time. Although this list is reviewed multiple times prior to posting, there is no guarantee of 100% accuracy.
As such, the AL is not a substitute for referring to various standard-setter documents and implementation guidelines. In this instance, Medulloblastoma Desmoplastic SHH-activated and TP53-wildtype 9471 is across several resources: the Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves module in Table 3, column 3 as a subtype/variant of Medulloblastoma NOS 9470; in the CNS WHO 5th Edition BB; and in the WHO IARC ICD-O-3.2 posted to ICD O 3 Coding Updates (naaccr.org). Although the exact related term of Medulloblastoma, SHH-activated, NOS is not listed, the NAACCR Implementation Guidelines for 2024 recommend checking the 2024 ICD-O-3 Update Table 1 or 2 to determine if the histology is listed. If the histology is not included in the update, then review ICD-O-3.2 and/or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database and/or Solid Tumor Rules (MP/H).
The Cancer PathCHART initiative has been undertaken to address gaps such as this between standard setting resources. Having all the standard histology coding resources included in a single all-inclusive database enables alignment of morphology codes & terms included in the CPC*SMVL (Cancer PathCHART Site-Morphology Validation List), Solid Tumors Rules, ICD-O-3 Annual Updates, NAACCR Annotated Histology List as well as the WHO 5th edition Blue Books. Please see Cancer PathCHART - Tumor Site-Morphology Surveillance Standards Initiative for more information on the Cancer PathCHART initiative, and more specifically, see Transitioning the Annotated Histology List to Cancer PathCHART (naaccr.org).
","2024" "20240006","Primary Site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What are the correct primary site and histology for patient diagnosed with an oropharyngeal soft tissue mass revealing plasma cell neoplasm with 5-10% of marrow cellularity in 2022? See Discussion.
","Patient underwent excision of an oropharyngeal soft tissue mass revealing plasma cell neoplasm with extensive amyloid deposition. During work-up, bone marrow biopsy also revealed involvement by plasma cell neoplasm, with 5-10% of marrow cellularity. No amyloid seen in bone marrow. Patient was referred for radiation of the oropharyngeal mass. Per medical oncology qualifying best for the diagnosis of solitary extramedullary plasmacytoma with minimal marrow involvement. Decision made for observation by medical oncology in view of “minimal” bone marrow involvement. Question: Is rule M11 correct, and I abstract this case as a plasma cell myeloma, 9732/3, C421?
","Code as an oropharyngeal primary site and histology as solitary plasmacytoma (9734/3) based on consultation with our hematological expert.
The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues defines multiple myeloma as ""bone marrow plasma cell percentage >60%."" There are several other factors, but the bone marrow involvement is the key point for your case. The pathologist also states that the bone marrow is consistent with ""plasma cell neoplasm,"" which by itself is not the same as multiple myeloma.
This case has 5-10% involvement by plasma cell neoplasm. This does not meet the bone marrow qualifications for multiple myeloma and is consistent with the pathologist's statement that there is minimal bone marrow involvement.
We will be updating the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and Manual to clarify this (2025 updates).
","2024" "20240005","SEER Manual/Mets at Diagnosis--Lung: Would calvarium lesions invading the brain be both brain and bone metastasis or only bone metastasis? See Discussion.
","Lung cancer, 2022
12/1/2022 PET/CT showed destructive hypermetabolic bone lesions in right frontal and left posterior calvarium. Left posterior calvarium lesion involves portions of left parietal and temporal bones w/invasion of mastoid air cells.
1/4/2023 MRI Brain showed large destructive mass involving left posterior temporal calvarium that extends into left mastoid region and may invade left distal transverse sinus.
2/8/2023 Radiation Oncology follow-up note: MD states there are extensive calvarium metastasis with the left parietal lesion invading the brain causing edema and MS-like changes.
2/13/23 Radiation Oncology Final Letter- Patient was treated with 1 EBRT fraction aimed at brain/skull before enrolling in hospice.
","Abstract as bone metastasis for the first two examples. Abstract as both bone and brain metastasis for the third and fourth examples in the respective Mets at Diagnosis fields based on the description provided.
","2024" "20240004","Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is a malignant spindle cell neoplasm consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2023 and later, after thorough immunohistochemical work-up? See Discussion.
","Appendix E1 in both the 2023 and 2024 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) lists these malignant spindle cell neoplasms, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma, as reportable when other tumors have been ruled out with immunohistochemistry. This contradicts both SINQ 20190102 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) general instructions indicating ambiguous terminology (e.g., “consistent with”) cannot be used to code the more specific histology when there is a NOS (malignant spindle cell neoplasm, 8004/3) and a more specific (malignant atypical fibroxanthoma, 8830/3) histology.
These tumors are typically diagnosed and treated in dermatology offices, so further chart review or confirmation by a physician is not possible for central registries.
As non-melanoma skin primaries are included in the Other Sites schema, and this schema was updated for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, which instruction applies to 2023+ diagnoses? Should these continue to be collected per Appendix E1 despite the conflict with the STR Manual and SINQ? If these are reportable, should the SINQ and STR Manual be updated to reflect this? Or should these be non-reportable per the STR Manual and SINQ?
","Report malignant spindle cell neoplasms consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma as directed by Appendix E.1 of the 2023 and 2024 versions of the SEER Manual using 8830/3 (fibroxanthoma, malignant).
We will update the answer in SINQ 20190102. While the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules address coding an NOS and specific histology sub-type/variant, this situation is not specifically addressed. We will also review the rules.
","2024" "20240003","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III (LIN II or LIN III)? See Discussion.
","Laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II-III is not included in the ICD-O-3.2 and, while the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual (SPCSM) confirms this is reportable, neither the SPCSM nor the Solid Tumor Rules Manual provide the specific histology to use for LIN II or LIN III. Should this be coded as 8077/2 since this is most like a high grade squamous dysplasia?
","Assign histology code, 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, high grade) for LIN III and for LIN II. ICD-O-3.2 lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II and grade III as 8077/2 indicating it is reportable. ICD-O-3.2 does not list every site-specific type of intraepithelial neoplasia. Check the SEER manual for reportable and non-reportable examples.
","2024" "20240002","First Course Treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should treatment data items be coded for a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and symptomatic anemia treated with Reblozyl (Luspatercept)? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient has a 04/2023 diagnosis of symptomatic anemia not responsive to Retacrit. Further testing includes diagnostic bone marrow biopsy 10/2023 proving MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, treated with Relozyl (Luspatercept).
There is no SEER*Rx listing for Reblozyl or Luspatercept. Per web search, Luspatercept, sold under the brand name Reblozyl, is a medication used for the treatment of anemia in beta thalassemia and myelodysplastic syndromes.
Is this non-cancer directed treatment since it is given to address the anemia rather than the MDS? If cancer-directed treatment, how should it be coded?
","Do not code Reblozyl (luspatercept) as treatment. Luspatercept is an ancillary drug approved to treat anemia associated with MDS but not the malignancy.
","2024" "20230080","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for low grade glioma? See Discussion.
","Patient has a 3 cm tumor in the temporal lobe of the brain. This was noted on MRI 12/2022. The radiologist states this is a low-grade glioma and recommends following with routine scans. No pathology or resection performed or planned. Patient has been followed with imaging every six months with stable disease. Low grade glioma is not currently listed in ICD-O-3.2 or the current Solid Tumor Rules. What histology should be assigned to the case?
","Assign 9380/1 for low grade glioma diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward and for low grade glioma diagnosed prior to 1/1/2018 assign code 8000/1 on the advice of our expert neuropathologists. The site/type combination of C71 _ and 9380/1 will flag histology/site/behavior edits which should be overridden.
Low grade glioma is an umbrella term or non-specific diagnosis, primarily seen on radiologic reports such as CT scans and MRIs. Often, the patient is actively followed with scans and surgical intervention delayed or not recommended. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize this term and indicates that tissue diagnosis (including genetic testing) is needed to provide a specific diagnosis. Since biopsy of these “neoplasms” is not routinely done, a definitive diagnosis is not available. Literature searches yielded conflicting information with some stating low grade gliomas are malignant with an indolent clinical course while others felt they were benign. Until such time as WHO proposes a code for this neoplasm, our expert neuropathologists recommend coding glioma, NOS with borderline behavior 9380/1.
","2023" "20230079","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Cutaneous Melanoma: How is histology coded for a 2023 diagnosis of “early lentiginous melanoma in situ” of the skin? See Discussion.
","Previous SINQ 20091100 has a similar scenario and the instruction was to code as lentigo maligna (8742/2); however, it does not appear to be applicable to cases diagnosed after 2020.
The WHO Blue Book does not list melanoma, lentiginous type or lentiginous melanoma in situ as an alternate term for lentigo maligna and neither do the STR or the ICD-O-3.2.
","Assign code 8742/2 (lentigo maligna) for “early lentiginous melanoma in situ.” ICD-O-3.2 lists the preferred term for 8742/2 as lentigo maligna (C44._).
","2023" "20230069","First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Colon: Is infliximab cancer directed treatment? See Discussion.
","While SEER*Rx does indicate infliximab should be coded as biological response modifier (BRM)/Immunotherapy, the manufacturer website for this medication indicates it is given for: Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis. In addition, SEER*Rx does not indicate which primary sites this treatment may be given for. If it is indeed cancer directed treatment, can the typical primary sites be added for clarity?
Case example: Patient is diagnosed with colorectal cancer and also has an existing diagnosis of Crohn’s disease; received surgery and FOLFOX6, as well as infliximab. There was no statement of what disease the infliximab was given to treat.
","infliximab is not cancer-directed treatment. This drug was last updated by the FDA 2/22/2023 with additional information on its approval to treat non-malignant neoplasms. To date, the FDA has not approved it for use in colon cancer. This drug was intially developed to treat colon cancer; however, found to be ineffective treating cancer.
","2023" "20230068","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the histology code for a diagnosis of poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma arising in a background of solid papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Patient had a hemithyroidectomy with the final diagnosis above. There does not appear to be an Other Sites H rule or table that addresses this combination of histologies for thyroid primaries.
","Code to poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma, 8337/3.
In this case the tumor is comrpised of two difffernat thyroid histologies: poorly differentiated carcinoma 8337/3 and papillary thyroid carcinoma 8260/3. WHO does not have a code for this combination. Per our endocrine pathology expert, the poorly differentiated carcinoma is the more agressive histology and will determine treatment and progrnosis.
","2023" "20230067","First Course Treatment/Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Breast: How is Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery coded when initially there is a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) and an intramammary node removed followed a month later by an axillary dissection for a right breast primary? See Discussion.
","Patient has a diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the right breast from a core biopsy on 04/2023.
Subsequent bilateral mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy proves one positive sentinel node and one negative intramammary node.
One month later there is a completion axillary node dissection with 15 nodes negative for malignancy.
Per previous SINQ 20190074, the initial mastectomy and sentinel node excision with intramammary node removal should be coded as Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 6. It is unclear how the resulting axillary dissection should be recorded in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. There is no code for sentinel node biopsy and 3, 4, or 5 at same time (code 6) PLUS an additional subsequent axillary dissection.
Please provide coding instructions for Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive, Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery in this scenario.
","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Assign code 7, Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at different times. In this case, the SLNBx (code 2) preceded the regional node dissection (code 5: 4 or more regional lymph nodes removed), i.e., procedures performed in separate surgical events.
Sentinel Lymph Nodes Examined: Assign code 98, Sentinel lymph nodes were biopsied, but the number is unknown. In this case, only the results were provided.
Sentinel Lymph Nodes Positive: Assign code 01, Sentinel nodes are positive (code exact number of nodes positive). In this case, there was one positive sentinel node.
","2023" "20230066","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: Table 3 in Lung Solid Tumor Rules, 2023 Update, lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS 8246 as a specific subtype/variant for small cell carcinoma 8041/3. Should the table be updated? See Discussion.
","Small cell carcinoma is a specific type of neuroendocrine carcinoma for the lung. However, Table 3 lists neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS as the more specific subtype/variant in Column 3.
Using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H6, a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8246, instead of 8041, because there are two histologies under consideration (an NOS and a subtype/variant in Table 3), and the rule tells us to code the subtype/variant. However, small cell carcinoma is more specific than the NOS diagnosis (neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS). Should Table 3 be updated to reflect which histology is the NOS and which is the more specific?
","The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung have been updated for 2024. The row for Small cell carcinoma 8041/3 has been deleted and new separate rows have been added for Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) 8246 and Neuroendocrine tumor, NOS (NET) 8240. This change is based on the WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors, 5th edition, and current concepts. In addition, Table 3 now reflects that Small cell carcinoma/small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 8041 (located in Column 3) is a subtype/variant of neuroendocrine carcinoma, NEC 8246 (Column 1). As a result, application of Rule H6 to a diagnosis of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (small cell carcinoma)” would be coded as 8041, instead of 8246. Please note: the 2024 updates may be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2024 unless otherwise noted in the rules.
","2023" "20230065","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Is histology coded as 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) for a 2023 diagnosis of two-component carcinoma comprised of both acinar adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.
","This patient does not have a previous diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma nor a previous history of androgen-deprivation therapy.
Does the logic in the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules (STRs) noted in SINQ 20200052 still apply? This SINQ confirms a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8045. This matches the STRs instructions for Rule H21 and Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes), row 1. Row 1 indicates a mixed small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma is combined small cell carcinoma (8045). For a patient without previous treatment, is this the correct mixed histology code?
","Code histology as combined small cell carcinoma (8045) based on the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, May 2023 Update, Table 2, Mixed and Combination Codes, for this mixed histology prostate carcinoma consisting of adenocarcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma regardless of treatment status. This is similar to SINQ 20200052 that applies to one tumor with mixed histologies.
","2023" "20230064","Primary Site--Cervix Uteri: When no other information is available regarding the origin of the tumor, can an overlapping cervical adenocarcinoma (C538, 8140/3) be coded to the endocervix (C530) based on the histology? See Discussion.
","Adenocarcinoma is a glandular tumor and the endocervix is generally the origin of glandular tissue for the cervix. However, if the only available information is pathology proving a single tumor overlapping the endocervix and exocervix, can we code the site to C530 instead of C538?
Applying the current primary site coding instructions, primary site would be coded as C538 because there is no specific statement of the tumor origin; the primary site coding instructions state the tumor is coded to an overlapping site in the absence of a specific statement of origin and there is no existing SINQ confirming the site can be assumed to be the endocervix based on the histology.
","Code Primary Site as Overlapping lesion of cervix uteri (C538). The 2023 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Primary Site Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors #4 says to code the last digit of the primary site code to ‘8’ when a single tumor overlaps an adjacent subsite(s) of an organ and the point of origin cannot be determined. This is also supported by the ICD-O-3, 3rd edition, note in the Topography section that states: In categories C00 to C809, neoplasms should be assigned to the subcategory that includes the point of origin of the tumor. A tumor that overlaps the boundaries of two or more subcategories and whose point of origin cannot be determined should be classified to subcategory ‘8.”
","2023" "20230063","EOD 2018/EOD Regional Nodes--Melanoma: Can central cancer registries code Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes as 000 based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) from a melanoma pathology only report with a localized tumor and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. See Discussion.
","Based on the EOD General instructions for accessible sites, the following three requirements must be met
a. There is no mention of regional lymph node involvement in the physical examination, pre-treatment diagnostic testing, or surgical exploration;
b. The patient has localized disease;
c. The patient receives what would be the standard treatment to the primary site (treatment appropriate to the stage of disease as determined by the physician), or patient is offered usual treatment but refuses it.
As a central registry, we receive a lot of melanoma path reports but never receive an abstract since the patients are seen at a dermatology office that does not report to the central registry. In these scenarios, we have both the diagnosis and wide excision or Mohs surgery from which we create a consolidated record. It is not often that lymph nodes are removed which indicates there were no palpable nodes.
Since the Breslow’s and Clark’s level allow for summary staging, is it possible to have central registry guidelines that allow for coding lymph nodes other than 999? The path reports meet two of the three criteria. Is there any new literature that supports coding lymph nodes 000 based on a Clark’s level or Breslow measure providing the patient has a wide excision?
","Assign 000 for EOD Regional Nodes when you have a pathology only report with a localized tumor based on Breslow’s depth and/or Clark’s Level (per EOD and/or Summary Stage) and no information on regional lymph nodes or mets. When the tumor is noted to be regional or distant based on Breslow’s Depth and/or Clark’s based on the definitions in EOD and/or Summary Stage, do not assume that the nodes are negative and assign 999. Clarification will be added to the EOD manual.
","2023" "20230062","Update to current manual/EOD 2018/EOD Primary Tumor--Appendix: Is it correct to code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor as code 500 (Invasion of/through serosa (mesothelium) (visceral peritoneum)) and EOD Mets as code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells), when the resection pathology report for a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) proves “Tumor Extent: Acellular mucin invades visceral peritoneum (serosa)” as well as metastatic LAMN within the right lower quadrant peritoneum? See Discussion.
","This patient had serosal involvement and the pathologist and managing physician staged this as pT4a disease. This extension seems best captured by EOD Primary Tumor code 500. Additionally, the patient had discontinuous metastatic involvement of the peritoneum, and this was staged by the pathologist and managing physician as pM1b (Intraperitoneal metastasis only, including peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells). Although this peritoneal involvement was present in the right lower quadrant, it was staged as distant metastatic disease and not as part of the primary tumor category. However, currently EOD Primary Tumor code 600 would seem to apply since the peritoneal tumor was in the right lower quadrant. Code 600 is defined as mucinous tumors with peritoneal involvement confined within right lower quadrant. This EOD Primary Tumor code and the physician’s M category assignment do not align; the physician has staged this as distant metastasis (M category, not the T category). Should the peritoneal metastasis (even limited to the right lower quadrant) be included in the EOD Mets field and not in the EOD Primary Tumor field? In other words, should the peritoneal involvement included in EOD Primary Tumor code 600 be reclassified in EOD Mets code 30 (Intraperitoneal metastasis (peritoneal carcinomatosis) WITH or WITHOUT peritoneal mucinous deposits containing tumor cells)?
","Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor and code 30 for EOD Mets. This will correctly derive the T4aM1b stage based on AJCC 8th edition.
Abstraction of peritoneal metastasis changed from the T category in the AJCC 7th edition to the M category in the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. As a result, for cases diagnosed in 2018 and later, peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant should be abstracted as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30. However, the EOD Primary Tumor code of 600 has not yet been updated to align with the 8th and 9th AJCC editions. The 2025 updates will correct for this via a conversion for cases diagnosed in 2018 and forward where EOD Primary Tumor = 600 and EOD Mets = 00 or 10 to EOD Primary Tumor = 500 and EOD Mets = 30. Effective immediately, abstract peritoneal deposits in the right lower quadrant as EOD Primary Tumor code 500 and EOD Mets code 30, even though you will still have the ability to assign EOD Primary Tumor code 600 in your abstraction software until the 2025 updates are deployed.
","2023" "20230061","EOD (2018)/EOD Primary Tumor--Prostate: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Prostate Pathologic Extension coded when no residual cancer is found? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with a pT1c prostate cancer in 2022. Patient was then treated with radical prostatectomy. No residual disease was found. Would the correct EOD prostate path extension code be 999 based on Note 8 (code 999 when radical prostatectomy is performed, but there is no information on the extension); or, would we use code 300 (confined to prostate) because the data item ""…is used to assign pT category for prostate cancer based on radical prostatectomy specimens"" and we know it was limited to the prostate because no residual was found?
","Assign code 300 for EOD Prostate Pathologic Extension.
In this scenario, the patient has a localized cancer confirmed by radical prostatectomy; the needle core biopsies likely removed all the cancer. Unlike prostate, other sites’ extension information is collected in EOD Primary Tumor, as seen commonly with breast tumors where the results from the surgical resection are recorded with tumor confined to primary site.
","2023" "20230060","Histology--Urinary: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of bladder carcinoma with a mix of different urothelial carcinoma subtypes? See Discussion.
","The 10/2023 TURBT final diagnosis is “Urothelial carcinoma with mixed histologic appearances, see synoptic summary below for details.” The synoptic report includes, “Histologic Type Comment: Invasive carcinoma percentages: Micropapillary 60-70%, high grade or poorly differentiated urothelial 20-30%, squamous 10-20%.” The squamous component is stated to be “Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation.”
It appears there are two specific urothelial carcinoma subtypes to consider: Urothelial carcinoma, micropapillary variant (8131/3) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (8020/3). The squamous component would not be considered because there is no specific histology for “squamous differentiation.”
The micropapillary component is the predominant histology (60-70%) in this case, and it does seem like this is important to capture. However, the WHO Blue Book indicates poorly differentiated carcinoma of the bladder has a poor prognosis.
","Code histology as urothelial carcinoma, NOS (8120/3). Our subject matter expert advises that WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition, does not recognize mixed urinary histologies; therefore, has not assigned an ICD-O code for urothelial mixed with multiple variants. Only pure variants are coded as they have a different prognosis from those that are mixed. According to WHO, invasive urothelial carcinoma is remarkable for its diversity of morphological appearances and a single lesion can display an admixture of conventional urothelial and various well-defined histological subtypes.
","2023" "20230059","Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis stated as MDS/AML (myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia) per the international consensus classification (ICC)? See Discussion.
","The final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy was high grade myeloid stem cell neoplasm, 17% blasts by differential count. The pathologist further states that this could be classified as “MDS with increased blasts (MDS-IB2) per the WHO 5th edition classification, or MDS/AML per the international consensus classification (ICC).” FISH and cytogenetics revealed a loss of 7q, but no other AML-related genetic abnormalities. The physician confirms the patient has MDS/AML.
","Code histology as myelodysplastic neoplasm with increased blasts (9983/3) based on the WHO Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors, 5th edition, Beta version 2. WHO lists MDS with increased blasts-2 (MDS-IB2) as a subtype of 9983/3.
When differences exist between WHO and ICC, assign the histology based on the WHO Classification.
","2023" "20230058","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient with known history of right breast carcinoma in 2018 followed by 2022 biopsy proven right and left breast invasive ductal carcinoma if the physician states this is a right breast primary with widespread metastasis including the left breast? See Discussion.
","The patient was initially diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma of the right breast in 2018, treated with lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, radiation, and hormones. Hormones were discontinued early due to dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
","This is a single primary according to the Solid Tumor Rules.
EOD (2018)/EOD Regional Nodes--Thyroid: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes coded for thyroid primary with cervical lymph nodes containing psammomatous calcifications (psammoma bodies) but negative for metastatic tumor cells? See Discussion.
","The AJCC 8th edition confirms that the identification of psammomatous calcifications within a cervical lymph node is metastatic disease.
Example: Patient had a thyroid lobectomy and level VI neck node excision in August 2022. The final diagnosis is multifocal papillary carcinoma of the thyroid, as well as rare psammomatous calcifications only in the resected node. The pathologist notes that “psammoma bodies only” in lymph nodes is not well defined, and while indolent, they do indicate capacity for lymphatic spread and are pN1a.
Should thyroid primaries with cervical node psammomatous calcifications get captured in EOD Regional Nodes category as it is in the AJCC pN staging?
","Assign EOD Regional Nodes code 300 for Psammoma bodies within a cervical lymph node that are microscopically confirmed. A clarifying note for the Thyroid Schema will be included in the 2025 EOD updates.
","2023" "20230056","Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code for nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma that is never called Hodgkin lymphoma? Is it acceptable to record the histology code for nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, (9659/3)? See Discussion.
","Patient has a history of human immunodeficiency virus and diffuse large B cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2012, and is status/post systemic therapy and in remission since completing first course treatment. In 2022, the patient has imaging suspicious for recurrence. A biopsy of a deep left cervical lymph node showed atypical lymphoid infiltrate with the comment: “This is a challenging case. The constellation of findings is most in keeping with early / focal and subtle involvement by a nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma. We find no evidence of involvement by a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” The managing physician later states, “Cervical lymph node biopsy (06/2022) was consistent with nodular lymphocyte predominant B cell lymphoma.”
","According to the 5th edition WHO Blue Book for Hematopoietic Neoplasms, Beta Version, (not released yet), nodular lymphocyte predominant B-cell lymphoma is an alternate name for 9659/3. We will update the Heme database once the 5th edition is released in print.
","2023" "20230055","Reportability/Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""the differential diagnoses include, but not limited to, mantle cell lymphoma, atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and a variant of marginal zone lymphoma"" reportable? In the Heme manual, they use differential diagnosis that include reportable conditions as reportable. This can be found under Code 1: positive histology in the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instruction section page 18. The phrase ""include, but not limited to"" makes this not clear.
","","This is reportable as 9591/3, B-cell lymphoma, NOS.All diagnoses in the differential are all B-cell lymphomas. The pathologist knows it a B-cell lymphoma but has not determined the subtype. If at a later time a specific lymphoma is determined, update the histology code accordingly.
","2023" "20230054","Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: According to SINQ 20140058, solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable (as of 2014). However, per ICD-O-3.2, this histology is not reportable until 2021+. Please clarify which is correct and clearly state the timeframe that it was reportable or not reportable.
","","Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable for cases diagnosed in 2014 and later. Report solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas (8452/3) as the guidance in SINQ 20140058 is still in effect.
The 4th and 5th editions of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the digestive system define solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas as a low-grade malignant pancreatic tumor.
","2023" "20230053","Reportability/Histology--Ovary/Testis: Is serous borderline tumor-micropapillary variant (8460/2) of the ovary or testis reportable? If so, what dates are applicable to the reportability changes? See Discussion.
","Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018.
There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes.
SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites.
Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable?
","Do not report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the ovary (8460/2, C569) as borderline ovarian tumors are not reportable. This applies to cases 2018 and later.
Do report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the testis as stated in SINQ 20220032. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later.
","2023" "20230052","Reportability/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What is the primary site of a meningioma arising from the jugular bulb/petrous aspect of the temporal bone? See Discussion.
","Example
July 2022, Brain CT describes a mass appearing to be centered on the petrous aspect of the temporal bone with intracranial and extracranial extension.
July 2022, Brain MRI describes an extra-axial mass centered in the right jugular bulb with intracranial and intraosseous extension as well as extension within the internal jugular vein.
September 2022, Resection operative report surgical findings are of a calcified mass filling middle ear, abutting stapes and appearing to enter the stapes obturator foramen, debulked. Final diagnosis is right middle ear meningioma, WHO grade I of III.
Is this a reportable intraosseous meningioma of the temporal bone/skull base, or a non-reportable meningioma arising in a meningocele within the middle ear?
","Do not report cases of meningioma originating in the jugular bulb or petrous aspect of temporal bone or middle ear. These are not intracranial locations.
This is a non-reportable meningioma arising in a meningocele within the middle ear. The jugular bulb is the confluence of the lateral venous sinuses situated in the jugular fossa. The precise location of this structure within the temporal bone is variable.The jugular bulb, petrous aspect of temporal bone, and middle ear are not intracranial locations, and therefore meningiomas arising in these areas are not reportable.
","2023" "20230051","First Course Treatment/Surgical Margins of the Primary Site--Melanoma: Is margin status positive or negative when the lesion “approximates” margins? This was noted in the pathology report comment on a malignant melanoma in-situ shave biopsy. Follow-up with physicians is not possible in this situation.
","","Assign margin status as “positive” when stated as approximates margins as recommended by our expert pathologists. Approximating means coming right up to inked margin without the margin transecting the tumor.
","2023" "20230050","Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is a diagnosis of Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation a reportable malignancy? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed in September 2022 via excision of a 12 cm pelvic mass with final diagnosis of Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation.
Diagnosis comment states, “Most of the tumor is composed of conventional features of myofibroblastoma. However, a focal area demonstrates increased cellularity, fascicular growth and increased mitotic activity (up to 11 per 10 hpf), consistent with sarcomatous transformation (morphologically low to intermediate grade).”
Is this sarcomatous transformation describing a malignant transformation from an otherwise benign histology? If so, how should histology be coded in this case?
","Do not report the case. The histology is 8825/0 based on the example provided and not reportable. Myofibroblastoma with sarcomatous transformation is a rare, benign condition, sometimes referred to as sarcomatous features. A malignant tumor would be referred to as a myofibroblastic sarcoma.
","2023" "20230049","Update to Current Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Skin: Regarding the 2023 skin surgery codes for punch biopsy NOS (B220) and shave biopsy NOS (B230), how is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded for cutaneous lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma when the punch or shave biopsy is not excisional? See Discussion.
","Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?
We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.
Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.
Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.
","Code the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200) as the date the shave, punch, or elliptical biopsy was performed. This instruction applies to cutaneous lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma as well. Beginning with cases diagnosed 2023 and after, shave, punch, or elliptical biopsies are coded as a surgical procedure regardless of margin status.
The instruction in the 2023 SEER Manual that states ""shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed"" has been deleted from the 2024 SEER Manual. Refer also to the Appendix C Coding Guidelines for Kaposi Sarcoma of All Sites and Lymphoma for coding primary site.
","2023" "20230048","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Uterine Corpus: How is histology coded for an epithelioid and myxoid leiomyosarcoma of the myometrium? See Discussion.
","Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy performed in January 2023 with final diagnosis of myxoid and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma.
Diagnosis comment states: The tumor is 15 cm per report. It grows in nests and poorly formed interanastomosing trabeculae and cords that are separated by abundant myxoid background. The cells have an epithelioid morphology with eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and very prominent nucleoli. The mitotic activity is overall low ranging from 1 to 3/10 HPFs.
Immunohistochemical stains performed at the outside hospital showed diffuse positivity for SMA, desmin, caldesmon, and PR. They are negative for CD10, claudin-4, calretinin, HBM45, MART1 (rare weakly positive cells), PANCK, and SOX10. This immunohistochemical profile supports a smooth muscle derivation of this neoplasm. As this tumor is extensively myxoid, diagnostic criteria differ from the spindle cell leiomyosarcoma.
Per Solid Tumor Rules Other Sites, Table 16: Uterine Corpus Histologies, Epithelioid Leiomyosarcoma (8891/3) and Myxoid Leiomyosarcoma (8896/3) are both subtypes of Sarcoma, NOS (8800/3). Per Rule H21, use a combination code when there are multiple specific histologies AND the combination is listed in Table 2 OR there are coding instructions for the combination in the applicable histology Tables 3-21 OR you receive a combination code from Ask A SEER Registrar. Since there is no combination listed in Table 2 and there is no instruction for the combination in Table 16, how should the histology be coded for this tumor?
","Assign code 8891/3 (epithelioid leiomyosarcoma) as cells were described as have an epithelioid morphology; whereas, myxoid was used as a descriptive term and not a specific histologic type.
","2023" "20230047","Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is a 2023 mandibular biopsy showing “severe squamous dysplasia with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion” reportable? See Discussion.
","Patient had a mandibular mucosal lesion resected in June of 2023, with a diagnosis of “atypical squamous proliferation” and case was forwarded to an expert in oral pathology for best classification. Subsequent slide review final diagnosis was “moderate to severe squamous dysplasia.” That slide review diagnosis goes on to state “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.”
Currently there is no ICD-O code for severe squamous dysplasia, however it is unclear if this terminology is equivalent to high grade squamous dysplasia (histology code 8077/2).
","Report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) on the basis of “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” ""Severe dysplasia"" is equivalent to ""high grade dysplasia"" in the Head and neck. As such, ""severe squamous dysplasia"" would be coded to 8077/2. However, in combination with the statement of ""with microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion,” report as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) based on “microscopic focus suspicious for superficial invasion.” The 2023 SEER Manual instructs us to code the behavior as malignant (/3) if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited, i.e., microinvasion. Use text fields to record the details.
","2023" "20230046","Reportability/Histology--Tongue: Is high grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue reportable; and is it the same as carcinoma in situ (CIS), code 8077/2?
","","High grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue is reportable as of 2021 and later as 8077/2.
","2023" "20230045","Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of “angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma” reportable if the diagnosis comment states, additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin? See Discussion.
","Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.” The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.” The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.” The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.”
","Do not report angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma based on the final, unchanged diagnosis. Worrisome is not a reportable ambiguous terminology.
","2023" "20230044","First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Breast: What pathology report descriptions are permissible to use in coding the Neoadjuvant Therapy Treatment Effect data item? See Discussion.
","1) In the SEER Manual's code definitions for Neoadjuvant Therapy - Treatment Effect, some sites specify the percentage of viable tumor. Pathology reports often list this along with the percentage of necrosis (e.g., 10% necrosis and 90% viable tumor). If only the percent necrosis is stated, is it acceptable to infer the percent viable tumor? For example, pathology report states only ""treatment effect: present, necrosis extent: 30%"" - could we then deduce that the percent viable tumor in this case would be 70%?
2) Can statements of Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) Class be used? For example, pathology report states Treatment Effect: Residual Cancer Burden Class II, with no further description of partial vs. complete response. It appears that RCB Class II is a ""moderate burden"" of residual tumor after neoadjuvant therapy; could this be interpreted as a partial response in the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect code definitions?
","1) Do not infer the percent of viable tumor if only percent of necrosis is provided. For the example, assign code 6 when Neoadjuvant therapy was completed and the treatment effect in the breast is stated only as “Present"".
2) Do not use the residual cancer burden (RCB) score from the pathology report to code the Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect field for breast cancer. We do not have a crosswalk from RCB to neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect.
RCB index is an accurate and reliable tool to assess patient prognosis. RCB is estimated from routine pathologic sections of the primary breast tumor site and the regional lymph nodes after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy. The data item Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect records information on the primary tumor only.
Document information in a text field in both examples.
","2023" "20230043","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for a lung tumor diagnosed as “Minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous, grade 1, lepidic-predominant”? See Discussion.
","The resection pathology report final diagnosis indicates this is both mixed mucinous and non-mucinous with a lepidic predominant component. The pathologist notes this is “Lepidic: 75%. Acinar: 25%.” The percentage of the mucinous component is not documented.
Rule H1, Note 1, states “When mucinous carcinoma is mixed with another histology, such as adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma, code mucinous ONLY when mucinous is documented to be greater than 50% of the tumor.” While mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous carcinoma is included in Table 2 (Combination/Mixed Histology Codes) without a required percentage, it is unclear whether one should move past Rule H7 and use Rule H8 to code this combination histology code. Rule H7 would instruct one to code the histology to lepidic adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant) based on the percentage of the lepidic component in the tumor. However, this does not address the mixed mucinous and non-mucinous diagnosis. Which H Rule and histology apply to this case?
","Assign histology code 8254/3 (mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma) to this lung tumor using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4. This is a new code/term approved by IARC/WHO for ICD-O. Rule H4 instructs one to code the histology when only one histology is present. In this case, the pathologist indicates the tumor is mixed mucinous and non-mucinous histologies. The non-mucinous carcinoma that is seen in this mixed histology may be identified as: Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, or lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. In this case it is lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma. Lepidic is a recognized histology in lung. It is not unusual for the pathologist to indicate mixed non-muncinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma AND also list the non-mucinous subytpe. It is important to capture both mucinous and non-mucinous histologies which drives treatment, etc.
","2023" "20230042","First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: What surgery code should be used for laparoscopic C/T open low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis, loop ileostomy in diagnosis year 2020, code 30 or 40? See Discussion.
","Can you provide clarification on Rectum primary surgical code 40 Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis)? Would this be code 30 or 40 due to the colorectal anastomosis?
","Assign code 40, Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis). The National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms defines coloanal anastomosis as a surgical procedure in which the colon is attached to the anus after the rectum has been removed. It is also called coloanal pull-through.
","2023" "20230041","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is an in situ tumor followed by an invasive tumor a single or multiple primaries? See Discussion.
","In the examples below, are these a single or multiple primaries?
Example 1:
Tumor 1: C509/left breast, 8520/2 (in situ lobular carcinoma), dx date-01/10/2019
Tumor 2: C509/ left breast, 8500/3 (carcinoma NST), dx date-08/19/2021
Example 2:
Tumor 1: C509, right breast, 8520/2, dx date 06/26/2014
Tumor 2: C508, right breast, 8500/3, dx date-05/23/2019
There seems to be some conflicting info on this. In the 2020 Breast Rules there was a note add to the revision history. “M10 Same behavior requirement re-added.” Which is not in the rules now, nor was it noted to the revision changes in the last two change logs.
Inquiry 20200070 would seem to indicate that this is multiple primaries, but that contrasts with 20230010 which would seem to indicate a single primary, and an ASK A SEER Registrar question that we received a response to. I don’t see a scenario where rule M17, an invasive tumor DX more than 60 days after an in situ tumor would come into play.
If behavior no longer applies to rule M10, at what point did that change get made? Please advise.
","Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular using the current Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, May 2023 Update, for cases diagnosed 01/01/2018 and forward in the examples provided. The rule also notes to follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code when a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST and lobular carcinoma. Rule M5 does not apply as the timeframe is less than 5 years in both examples.
The 2023 update for the Breast Solid Tumor Rules (released November 2022) states: The rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2. Applicable Histology Rules have also been revised to reflect ICD-O-3.2 histology terminology and corresponding ICD-O codes.
","2023" "20230040","First Course Treatment/Hormone Therapy--Prostate: Is Lupron first course therapy in a patient who initially elected active surveillance for prostate cancer and then consented to treatment with Lupron? See Discussion.
","in March, the patient with stage cT1c, Gleason grade 7, prostate cancer elected active surveillance. In April, the patient consented to treatment with Lupron. There was no evidence of disease progression. According to the rules on page 161 of the 2023 SEER manual, we think the answer is yes, but the reporting hospital states that this is second course therapy.
","Code Lupron as second course therapy and code active surveillance as first course therapy in this scenario. The 2023 SEER Manual states to code all treatment data items to 0 or 00 (Not done) when the physician opts for active surveillance, deferred therapy, expectant management, or watchful waiting. Assign code 2 to Treatment Status.
Active surveillance is not the same as ""refusing treatment."" Active surveillance is a valid option offered to the patient. The patient chose this option and later changed their mind. This is not a refusal of recommended treatment.
Document all the details in the appropriate treatment text fields.
","2023" "20230039","Histology/Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms--AML: What is the histology code for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML) with monocytic differentiation, 9891/3: acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia or 9867/3: Acute myelomonocytic leukemia?
","","Code AML with monocytic differentiation as acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) per consultation with our expert hematopathologist.
Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia (9891/3) and acute myelomonocytic leukemia (9867/3) are distinct entities according to the WHO. ""AML with monocytic differentiation"" is a descriptive diagnosis, whereas, ""Acute monoblastic and monocytic leukemia"" are specific diagnoses. In the WHO Classification of Tumours, Central nervous system tumours (4th Ed) in 2016, WHO began integrating information on molecular alterations that provide significant prognostic implications and/or a therapeutic target into the histology code/term itself. As a result it is also important to look at the molecular testing because acute myeloid leukemias can have different molecular mutations that could result in coding to a different histology code. In this case, there was no other information regarding additional immunophenotyping, so that is why AML, NOS was assigned. Acute myeloid leukemia with monocytic differentiation has been added to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database as an alternate name for 9861/3.
","2023" "20230038","Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Mycosis Fungoides: What is the histology code for lymphomatoid papulosis that transforms initially to mycosis fungoides (MF)/cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and subsequently to CTCL with large cell transformation, and is it a new primary? See Discussion.
","Disease History
2018 - Lymphomatoid papulosis (non-reportable)
2020 - Transform to CTCL (and called Mycosis Fungoides specifically) (CTCL/MF same primary)
2021 - Transform to CTCL with large cell transformation
","Abstract a single primary and assign code 9700/3 for MF. According to our subject matter expert, this is all MF. When MF progresses, there can be large cd30 positive T cells. This is not the same as anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
","2023" "20230037","Reportability/Histology--Gallbladder: Is intracholecystic papillary-tubular neoplasm (ICPN) with extensive high grade dysplasia of the gallbladder reportable?
","","Report intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with high-grade dysplasia (8503/2) of the gallbladder.
","2023" "20230036","Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is angiomyxoma (8841/1), such as aggressive angiomyxoma of vulva diagnosed in 2022, reportable?
","","Do not report superficial angiomyxoma (8841/0) or aggressive angiomyxoma (8841/0). WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, defines deep (aggressive) angiomyoma as a benign, infiltrative, myxoid spindle cell neoplasm that occurs in deep soft tissue of the pelviperineal region.
","2023" "20230035","Update to Current Manual/2018 EOD Manual/EOD Primary Tumor--Bladder: According to the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC), a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) cannot make a distinction between involvement of the superficial muscle-inner half (Stage T2a) and the deep muscle-outer half (Stage T2b). Is this same criteria applied to Extent of Disease (EOD)?
","","EOD follows AJCC criteria in this situation and we have confirmed with AJCC that Stage T2a (superficial muscle) and Stage T2b (deep muscle) cannot be assigned when only a TURB is done.
For EOD Primary Tumor, Bladder, codes 200, 250, 300, 350, can only be used when
If a TURB is done and there is mention of the muscularis propria invasion (superficial muscle or deep muscle), use EOD codes 370 or 400. If a TURB is done and the pathology report states superficial or deep muscle, ignore and coded as “invasion of muscularis propria, NOS” (EOD codes 370 or 400).
Instructions and code descriptions for EOD Primary Tumor have been updated to indicate this. These updated instructions and code descriptions will be available when SEER*RSA is updated for 2024, Version 3.1 (Sept/Oct 2023). These updates are included here for reference and can be applied for cases diagnosed 2018+.
","2023" "20230034","Update to Current Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Melanoma: Considering the 2023 melanoma surgery codes for punch biopsy NOS (B220) and shave biopsy NOS (B230), how is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded when the punch or shave biopsy is not excisional? See Discussion.
","Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?
Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy?
","Code the Date of First Surgical Procedure as 01/01/2023 in the example provided where the shave biopsy is followed by wide excision. Beginning in 2023, significant changes were made in that shave, punch, and elliptical biopsies are coded as surgical procedure regardless of margin status. Appendix C Skin Surgery Codes state that an incisional biopsy would be a needle or core biopsy of the primary tumor.
Please see Appendix M: Case Studies for Coding Melanoma in STORE v23, Case study 2: Shave Biopsy followed by WLE (page 412), for an explicit example of how to code your example case.
We will clarify this in the upcoming release of the SEER manual,
","2023" "20230033","Histology--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code for a final diagnosis of features compatible with EBV-positive nodal T-/NK-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.
","This patient has only nodal involvement for this EBV positive NK/T cell lymphoma. There is no extranodal involvement, specifically no nasal involvement. Additionally, the immunophenotyping does not match the immunophenotyping listed for histology 9719. Therefore, histology 9719 (Extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, nasal type) does not seem applicable to this case. This patient is an adult, so histology 9724 (Systemic EBV-positive T-cell lymphoma of childhood) also does not seem to be a match. The most recent WHO Classification seems to classify these as 9702. Is this the appropriate histology for an EBV-positive nodal NK/T-cell lymphoma in an adult?
","Assign code 9702/3 for EBV+ nodal T- and NK-cell lymphoma. Primary nodal EBV-positive T- or NK-cell lymphoma is a rare lymphoma type introduced in the 2017 WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues (4th Ed.) as a variant of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). It presents more commonly in elderly and/or immunodeficient patients, lacks nasal involvement, and is more often of T-cell rather than NK-cell lineage.
","2023" "20230032","Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive reportable? See Discussion.
","The final diagnosis for a left thyroid lobectomy was Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, further stated to be Histologic Type: Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant, encapsulated/well demarcated, non-invasive. The diagnosis comment states there is a small follicular pattern papillary microcarcinoma.
Is the designation of “non-invasive” for this papillary follicular tumor equivalent to a non-reportable diagnosis of Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP), 8349/1? Or should this be accessioned as either a reportable in situ (non-invasive) papillary follicular thyroid carcinoma or a papillary microcarcinoma per the diagnosis comment?
","Your case is equivalent to encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma, non-invasive (non-invasive EFVPTC) and is not reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021 or later even though it says ""carcinoma."" That is because the WHO assigned a behavior code of /1 to this entity (8349/1). NIFTP is assigned to the same histology and behavior code.
","2023" "20230031","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a 2022 diagnosis of right upper lobe non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) when the patient has a history acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020, followed by squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021? See Discussion.
","The patient was not synchronously diagnosed with multiple tumors, but three separate tumors with three different histologies were diagnosed at different times and no more specific histology was provided for the NSCLC. The timing rules do not apply to this case (the tumors were not greater than 3 years apart and they were not synchronously/simultaneously diagnosed).
While NSCLC is a NOS histology for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, it is unclear if Rule M8 should apply because NSCLC is not listed in Table 3 (Table 3 is not an exhaustive list). In some situations, Rule M8 would apply if the tumors were different histologies and one of the histologies was not listed in the Table. Does that logic still apply if one of the tumors is NSCLC? If NSCLC is excluded from Rule M8, is Rule M14 the appropriate M Rule for the 2022 NSCLC diagnosis?
","The patient's previous acinar adenocarcinoma in the right lower lobe of the lung in 2020 and squamous cell carcinoma in the right middle lobe of the lung in 2021 were correctly abstracted as two primaries per rule M8 as they are in different rows in Table 3. The NSCLC, RUL (8046) diagnosed in 2022 would not be abstracted as a third primary because NSCLC is a broad category which includes all histologies in Table 3 (except for small cell carcinoma/neuroendocrine tumors (NET Tumors) 8041 and all subtypes), and because it was diagnosed less than 3 years after the 2021 squamous cell carcinoma, RML (8070).
","2023" "20230030","Primary site: Is there a physician priority list for coding primary site? For example, the surgeon states during a pancreatectomy that the primary is in body while the pathologist states in their synopitc report that primary is neck; neither is in agreement, or neither is available for confirmation.
","","As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ.
In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the ""body"" vs. the ""neck."" In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251.
","2023" "20230029","Primary Site--Skin: Are perianal skin primaries within 5 cm of the anus coded as perianal skin (C44.5) or anus (C21.0). See Discussion.
","ICD-O-3 tells us that perianal skin is C445 and we do not capture basal or squamous cell skin cancers in our registry. The AJCC manual stages perianal skin cancers within 5 cm of the anus with the anus chapter. We cannot AJCC stage them as an anus if we are not capturing them as C445. I realize we do not code a site in order to stage. We have been following the reportability rules and not capturing. Is this correct? I do not see this addressed in the new Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.
","Code primary site based on the site of origin as determined by the physicians. If the physicians state the site of origin is anus, code anus; the same as with skin. As you state, squamous cell cancer of sites coded to C44 is not reportable. The AJCC instruction for physicians to stage perianal neoplasms within 5 cm of the anus using the Anus chapter does not change cancer registry instructions for coding primary site, nor does it affect cancer registry reportability instructions.
","2023" "20230028","Histology--Vulva: How is the histology coded for vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III)/Squamous cell carcinoma in situ from a pathology report of the vulva, 8070/2 for squamous cell carcinoma in situ or 8077/2 for VIN III? The rules do not discuss this particular situation.
","","Assign 8077/2 for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, VIN 3 in this case. The WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, states that squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) of the vulva are also known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV-associated. The term squamous cell carcinoma in situ is not recommended.
","2023" "20230027","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Peripheral Nerves: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M Rule applies, when a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) in the right arm (C471) is followed greater than one year later by a separate malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the thoracic chest wall (C473)? See Discussion.
","Since the peripheral nerves are included in the Malignant CNS schema of the Solid Tumor Rules, neither the differences in subsite nor timing indicate these are separate primaries (Rule M10 indicates a single primary). However, these are separate MPNSTs in different sites and the tumors are not stated to be metastasis. Additionally, these are treated as separate primaries by the managing physician.
While the malignant CNS tumors do not take timing into account, is this correct for these peripheral nerve tumors that are often treated similarly to soft tissue tumors? Should Rule M8 be updated to include tumors in different peripheral nerve subsites?
","Abstract a single primary using Solid Tumor Rules, Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves, Rule M10 based on the information provided. Rule M10 applies as both non-contiguous tumors are of the same histology; i.e., on the same row in Table 3. As MPNST can arise in many sites, look for information about the precise location and tissue type in which the tumor arose. For example, if the tumors are stated to arise in soft tissue, follow the Multiple Primary Rules for Other Sites.
Both WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors and WHO Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors state that MPNST is a malignant spindle cell tumor often arising from a peripheral nerve, from a pre-existing benign nerve sheath tumor, or in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1).
Future updates will move C470-C479 from CNS to other sites module.
","2023" "20230026","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted, and which M rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on biopsy followed by invasive adenocarcinoma on radical prostatectomy more than 60 days later? See Discussion.
","Example: A prostate core biopsy showed intraductal carcinoma in 09/2022, which is an in situ tumor. A core biopsy again showed intraductal carcinoma in 12/2022. The subsequent radical prostatectomy in 04/2023, revealed multiple foci of invasive prostate adenocarcinoma with extensive intraductal carcinoma.
Per Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M3, acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate is always a single primary. Note 4, this rule applies to subtype variants of acinar adenocarcinoma listed in Table 3, which has intraductal/ductal as a variant subtype of acinar adenocarcinoma. Does rule M3 apply to incidence cases (an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor)?
","Rule M1 applies because we don't know if there are separate tumors or separate foci within a single tumor. This is a single primary coded 8140/3. The prostate rules will be reviewed for an addition to cover this situation.
","2023" "20230025","Histology--Cervix: Can human papilloma virus (HPV) or p16 testing results from a non-reportable high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) pathology report be used to code histology as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), HPV-positive (8085), if subsequent excision/resection identifies invasive SCC and no further HPV or p16 testing is done on the invasive specimen? See Discussion.
","Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV.
Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative.
","Use the histology codes SCC, HPV-associated (8085/3) and SCC, HPV-independent (8086/3) only when HPV testing is done on that specimen. Do not use previous HPV tests to code the histology.
Code as SCC, NOS (8070/3) in both examples as no HPV testing was performed on the LEEP procedure specimens that identified the SCC.
","2023" "20230024","SEER Manual/Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is microadenoma reportable? A pituitary mass seen on imaging was ""consistent with Microadenoma"" on 11/15/2022. There was no histologic confirmation or treatment given.
","","Pituitary microadenoma is reportable. Assign 8272/0. ""Micro"" refers to size of the adenoma.
Per the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022, a reportable intracranial or CNS neoplasm identified only by diagnostic imaging is reportable, and ""consistent with"" is listed on the Ambiguous Terms to be used for Reportability list. As a result, this case is reportable.
","2023" "20230023","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries—Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and which M Rule applies, to a 2018 of pituitary adenoma (8272/0) that was partially resected followed by a 2023 resection of residual disease proving pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (8727/3)? See Discussion.
","The patient had residual tumor following the 2018 transsphenoidal resection and underwent an additional surgery after the residual tumor increased in size. Since pituitary adenoma/pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) is a new malignant neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2023 and later, should this be a new primary per M5? Or do we disregard the change in behavior and apply rule M2 (single tumor is a single primary) for this scenario?
","This case does not fall into the standard rules. WHO criteria for diagnosing pituitary adenoma have recently changed (per 5th Ed WHO CNS book) and we will likely see more PitNET’ s than pituitary adenomas in the future. PitNET may be invasive or non-invasive but the likelihood of the pathologists providing this information is low. Since we don’t know if the 2018 adenoma was a PitNET based on current criteria or if it transformed to the malignant neoplasm, err on the side of caution and abstract a second primary per M5.
This issue is new, and we’ve received numerous questions concerning pathologist reviewing older cases of pituitary adenoma and reclassifying them as PitNET using the new criteria.
","2023" "20230022","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries: What M Rule of the updated Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, applies to a 2022 diagnosis of endometrial cancer, followed greater than one year later by a 2023 diagnosis of esophageal cancer with no interim evidence of tumor recurrence? See Discussion.
","These diagnoses were made greater than one year apart with a disease-free interval and M12 seems to be the first rule that applies. This rule does not specifically state the tumors diagnosed greater than 1 year apart must be in the same primary site but Note 1 could be interpreted as implying this. Note 1 states, “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow-up.”
Does Other Sites Rule M12 (the timing rule) apply to tumors in different primary sites? It would be helpful if the notes specified this clarification, such as “Clinically disease-free means that there was no evidence of recurrence in the same site (same second and third character CXX.X) on follow-up.”
","Abstract multiple primaries using the Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M13. The topography differs at the second and third characters (C54.1 Endometrium; C15 Esophagus). Rule M12 refers to being disease-free vs. recurrence of a tumor, where Note 1 states that clinically disease-free means no evidence of recurrence in the same site on follow up.
A note can be added to clarify that M12 applies to new tumors in the SAME site.
","2023" "20230021","Histology--Soft Tissue: How is histology coded for malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement diagnosed on left shoulder excision? See Discussion.
","March 2022, left shoulder soft tissue mass excision shows a spindle cell tumor with outside consultation diagnosis of malignant neoplasm with neuroectodermal differentiation and TPR-NTRK1 gene rearrangement. Diagnosis comments indicate the findings most closely resemble the spectrum of kinase-rearranged mesenchymal neoplasms, such as lipofibromatosis-like neural tumor. However, the expression of SOX10 and mature melanocytic markers is unusual, and does not exclude melanocytic differentiation.
Should this be classified as a peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (9364) or as an ""NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm (emerging)"" (8990) if there is a NTRK gene rearrangement?
","NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm is a newly identified variant of sarcoma; however, WHO has not yet proposed a specific ICD-O code for this rare neoplasm. Code to spindle cell sarcoma (8801/3).
WHO defines NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm as an emerging group of molecularly defined rare soft tissue tumors that span a wide group of morphologies and histological grades, and are most often characterized by a spindle cell phenotype among other characteristics.
","2023" "20230020","First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded for cases when surgery was planned but aborted due to extent of disease seen during planned procedure? See Discussion.
","Lung abnormality on imaging prompted diagnosis on subsequent biopsy and clinical staging was documented as cT1b N0 M0. There was an attempt at resection, but the patient was found to have chest wall involvement and the procedure was aborted.
How would Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded in these types of scenarios when the surgery is aborted and the treatment plan changes due to the extension seen during surgery?
","For the example provided: For 2023 cases and forward, if no part of the surgery was performed, code Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) as code A000 or B000 (no surgical procedure of the primary site). Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 2 (surgery of the primary site was not recommended/performed because it was contraindicated due to patient risk factors (comorbid conditions, advanced age, progression of tumor prior to planned surgery, etc.).
In contrast, if any part of the surgery was performed, assign the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) code that best reflects the extent of the surgery performed. Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 0 (surgery of the primary site was performed).
Use text fields to record the details.
For cases prior to 2023, apply the same approach using Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1290) instead of Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291).
","2023" "20230019","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Pancreas: How many primaries, and what M Rule applies, when a pancreatectomy identified an invasive adenocarcinoma in one pancreatic head tumor, but multiple separate pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs), WHO grade 1, in the pancreatic body? See Discussion.
","There was a 3.5 cm invasive adenocarcinoma tumor in the pancreatic head. There were four separate, sized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors measuring 0.9, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 cm in the pancreatic body. There are multiple tumors with distinctly different histologies. However, Table 11 (Pancreas Histologies) does not include any entries for neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas (e.g., pancreatic NET, WHO grade 1, histology 8240). While it would seem Rule M19 should apply as they’re distinctly different histologies, because PanNETs are not included in Table 11, it is not clear which M Rule applies to these multiple tumors.
If Rule M19 does not apply, we are left with Rule M21 (Abstract a single primary when there are multiple tumors that do not meet any of the above criteria). Are these separate tumors with distinctly different histologies really a single primary? Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are not an uncommon histology, is there a reason these were not included in Table 11?
","Abstract two primaries using the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule M19, as adenocarcinoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are two distinct histologies. The WHO Classification of Digestive Tumors, 5th ed., Chapter 10-Tumors of the Pancreas, lists both epithelial tumors and neuroendocrine neoplasm as separate entities. The Solid Tumor Rules histology-specific tables contain histologies that commonly occur in the 19 site-specific histology tables; therefore, not all histologies are listed in the rules. Further, the adenocarcinoma would be staged in the Pancreas Schema, while the neuroendocrine tumor would be staged in the NET Pancreas schema.
We will consider adding PanNETs to Table 11 in a future release of the Solid Tumor Rules.
","2023" "20230018","SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion.
","Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory).
Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory?
","A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors.
Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment.
The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle.
","2023" "20230017","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Rectum/Anal Canal: How many primaries are accessioned and how should histology be coded for a 2021 abdominoperineal resection showing invasive adenocarcinoma of distal rectum and associated Paget disease of the anal mucosa and perianal skin? See Discussion.
","The synoptic report calls this “Invasive adenocarcinoma with secondary Paget disease of anal mucosa and perianal skin.” The tumor size is listed as “2.1 x 1.7 x 0.7 cm, including associated advanced adenoma; size does not include the extent of the associated Paget disease, which extends for at least 2 cm distally.” Clinically this is called an incidentally discovered Paget’s disease.
It is unclear if this is a collision tumor that should be abstracted as separate primaries, or if this is a single tumor with underlying Paget’s disease (similar to that described in Other Sites Rule H26). If this is a single rectal tumor, there does not appear to be an H rule for this scenario.
","Abstract two primaries using rule M4 of the Colon rules or rule M13 of Other Sites: 1. Invasive adenocarcinoma of distal rectum and 2. Paget disease of the anal mucosa / perianal skin (determine site of origin and code primary site accordingly). The rectum and the anus are separate sites and the histologies differ in each site.
The WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, states that in addition to secondary anal Paget disease arising from anal canal adenocarcinoma, or rarely, adenoma without documented invasive disease, secondary Paget cells may be contiguous with the underlying neoplasm or manifest at different at sites distinctly away from it (with skip lesions). Document the details in the appropriate text fields.
","2023" "20230016","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Brain: How is histology coded for an anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, BRAF p.V600E mutant, WHO Grade III, diagnosed following a right temporal lobe resection in 2021? See Discussion.
","The patient has a history of ganglioglioma, WHO grade I, involving the deep right parietal lobe diagnosed on resection in 07/2012. Tumor recurrence in 2017 was treated with radiation.
The patient then had right temporal tumor biopsy and resection 06/2021 with final diagnosis of anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, BRAF p.V600E mutant, WHO Grade III. Pathologist notes that the tumor demonstrates a ganglioglioma with frequent mitoses and possible vascular proliferation. Subsequent consult findings support an anaplastic glioneuronal tumor, compatible with progression of the patient's ganglioglioma that is post-irradiation. However, the pleomorphic and epithelioid areas are also reminiscent of pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, which may occur in combination with ganglion cell components. There is no related SINQ to code this histology.
","Assign histology as 9505/3. WHO Classification of Central Nervous System (CNS) Tumors describe ganglioglioma as a well-diffferentiated and slow-growing glioneuronal neoplasm. While WHO does not recognize the histology/behavior combination 9505/3, the 2021 CNS Solid Tumor Rules identify non-malignant tumors that have the potential of transforming to a malignant tumor (new primary). Ganglioglioma (9505/1) is listed with the transformed histology and instructs us to code as anaplastic ganglioglioma (9505/3).
","2023" "20230015","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries: Should two 2021 diagnoses be abstracted as two primaries? The patient has a history of thyroid cancer in 2008 with no evidence of recurrence/progression. In 2021, two abstracts were submitted with a diagnosis of C809, poorly differentiated malignant neoplasm and a C421, myeloproliferative disorder. See Discussion.
","2021-Right pleural fluid: Negative for carcinoma.
5/18/2021: Right iliac crest bone marrow core biopsy, aspirate smear, clot section and peripheral blood smear: Hypercellular bone marrow, morphological findings are suspicious for a myeloproliferative neoplasm. Flow Cytometry: Slight immunophenotypic abnormalities of the myeloid cells. No abnormal B cell, T cell, or NK cell populations identified. Normal female karyotype. KARYOTYPE: 46,XX[20]. Negative for deletion of 13q14.3 (D13S319) by FISH. Negative for deletion of 13q34 (LAMP1) by FISH. Negative for hyperdiploidy involving chromosome 9 by FISH. Negative for t(9;22)(q34;q11.2) by FISH. Negative for deletion of the EGR1 gene on 5q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 5 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 7q31 by FISH. Negative for monosomy 7 by FISH. Negative for deletion of 20q12 by FISH. Negative for trisomy of chromosome 8 by FISH.
6/4/21-Left adrenal; biopsy: poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Immunohistochemical stains show the neoplastic cells to be negative for CK7, TTF-1 and p63. Negative CK7 and TTF-1 would argue against a lung primary. Correlation with clinical and radiological findings is advised.
We are unable to contact the provider.
","Based on the diagnosis date for the unknown primary, use the 2007 MPH Other sites rules. Since the site codes differ for each primary, rule M11 applies, abstract two primaries.
","2023" "20230014","Reportability--Thyroid: Is a case with thyroid fine needle aspirate (FNA) cytology with nodule 1 Bethesda category 5 and nodule 2 Bethesda 6, reportable in 2021? Does the Bethesda category 5 or 6 have any bearing on reportability?
","","In the absence of information to the contrary, thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category VI are reportable. Thyroid FNAs designated as Bethesda classification category V are not reportable unless there is additional information confirming a reportable diagnosis. For both Bethesda V and VI, NCCN Guidelines recommend total thyroidectomy or lobectomy (depending on tumor size and nodal involvement) for the purposes of definitive diagnosis/treatment, so additional information should be available.
We will add this to the next version of the SEER manual.
In your example, nodule 1 Bethesda V is not reportable. Nodule 2 Bethesda VI is reportable.
","2023" "20230013","Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth, DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2, or DFSP with focal myxoid features (2022) reportable for 2021-2022 diagnoses?
","","Yes. DFSP with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2 are synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). Our expert pathologist also advises that DFSP with focal myxoid features is the same as DFSP, myxoid (8832/3).
","2023" "20230012","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 06/2022 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma is followed less than one year later by a 01/2023 diagnosis of small cell carcinoma (SmCC)? See Discussion.
","Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules to address diagnoses of small cell carcinoma following prostate adenocarcinoma, but Rule M4 states the diagnoses must be greater than one year apart.
In this situation, the diagnoses were less than one year apart and one must continue through the M Rules. The next M Rule that applies Rule M18: “Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on multiple rows in Table 2-21 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant.” If one were to STOP at the first rule that applies, one would stop at Rule M18 which confirms the prostatic adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma are separate primaries, regardless of timing. If these are not to be accessioned as multiple primaries, does an Exception need to be added to M18?
","Assuming the smal cell is a seperate tumor, accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M18 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. As these two tumors are less than a year apart, Rule M4 does not apply; however, Rule 18 does apply as these are two distinct histology types. It takes time for an acinar tumor to transform into the small cell and it is usually triggered by hormone and/or radiaiton treatment.
","2023" "20230011","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 liver biopsy diagnosed metastatic small cell carcinoma (SmCC) of the prostate following a 2018 radical prostatectomy treated diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.
","SINQs 20190083, 20180088, and 20130221 all indicate diagnoses of prostate adenocarcinoma, followed by a diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries because these are distinctly different histologies. Does this logic still apply for 2023 and later since Rule M4 was added to the Other Sites M Rules? Rule M4 states, “Abstract multiple primaries when the patient has a subsequent small cell carcinoma of the prostate more than 1 year following a diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma and/or subtype/variant of acinar adenocarcinoma of prostate.”
This patient has a 2018 diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by a 2023 diagnosis of metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on a liver metastasis core biopsy. Rule M4 does not indicate whether it applies to subsequent biopsy confirmed metastatic tumor only. When a diagnosis of small cell carcinoma follows a diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma, it is almost always confirmed in metastatic sites rather than in the primary site. Does the logic in the referenced SINQs above still apply for Rule M4?
","Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma (8140/3) of the prostate and SmCC (8041/3) of the prostate using Rule M4 of the current Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. The guidance in the aforementioned SINQ entries still applies with the additional criteria of being diagnosed more than one year following the diagnosis of acinar adenocarcinoma, or subtype, of the prostate as stated in Rule M4 of the updated 2023 rules. Small cell carcinomas of the prostate are often diagnosed on follow-up TURP/biopsies; however, if a patient had a previous radical prostatectomy, the small cell carcinoma would be identified in a metstatic site and would still be a new prostate primary. This includes biopsy confirmed metastatic tumors only. It remains important to capture the two distinct histology types.
","2023" "20230010","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2020 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma treated by lumpectomy is followed by a 2023 diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma treated by mastectomy? See Discussion.
","Historically, multiple invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas diagnosed within 5 years were abstracted as a single primary. However, it is not clear if Rule M10 or M14 applies to this situation per the 2023 Solid Tumor Rules updates.
Rule M10 addresses multiple tumors of carcinoma of no special type (NST)/duct and lobular, but there is no timing criteria mentioned. Does M10 apply to cases diagnosed synchronously, or metachronously, or at least within 5 years? Should Rule M10 include a Note instructing registrars to accession a single primary for the scenario in question?
If timing matters for Rule M10, then the next rule that applies is M14. Rule M14 instructs one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3, and carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma are on separate rows in Table 3.
","Abstract a single primary using the Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, assuming the tumors are in the same breast. This rule is specific to multiple tumors of carcinoma NST/duct and lobular. Timing is not a factor in this rule. As stated in ‘New for 2023,’ the rules for determining single versus multiple primaries in tumors with carcinoma NST/duct and lobular carcinoma have been revised and now align with ICD-O-3.2.
Tumors occurring more than five years apart are multiple primaries and would have been caught at Rule M5. Thus, rule M10 pertains to tumors occuring less than five years apart.
","2023" "20230009","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply? See Discussion.
","Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2.
All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule.
Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies?
","Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms.
Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis.
Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates.
Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that. A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included.
","2023" "20230008","SEER Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Breast: What instructions should be followed when the 2023 SEER Manual Appendix C 2023 Breast Surgery Codes advise to code 1 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site for a simple bilateral mastectomy but the 2023 STORE Manual does not. See Discussion.
","The 2023 SEER Manual, Appendix C 2023 Breast Surgery Codes, note reads:
SEER Note: Assign code A760 for a more extensive bilateral mastectomy. Assign code 0 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294). For a simple bilateral mastectomy, assign code A410 with code 1 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294).
In the 2023 STORE Manual, these notes are not mentioned and we are instructed not to code surgery to other site. Other education related to 2023 breast coding provided by NAACCR states to not code surgery to other site.
","Assign code 1 in Surgical Procedure of Other Site (NAACCR #1294) when a simple bilateral mastectomy is performed for a single tumor involving both breasts. This statement was inadvertently omitted from the STORE manual and will be added back in: For single primaries only, code removal of contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item #1294) or Surgical Procedure/Other Site at This Facility (NAACCR Item #674).
The information presented by NAACCR was intended to be consistent with what is in the SEER manual. It may have been misuderstood.
","2023" "20230007","SEER Manual/Reportability--Appendix: Is low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with peritoneal spread followed by evidence of extraperitoneal metastatic disease reportable prior to 2022? See Discussion.
","In 2021, the patient was diagnosed with a non-reportable appendiceal LAMN. Resection showed a tumor diffusely involving the appendix and perforating the visceral peritoneum, as well as extensive intraperitoneal metastasis. In 2023, a lung wedge resection revealed metastatic mucinous neoplasm involving lung parenchyma and pleura, consistent with metastasis of the known appendiceal primary. It is understood that intraperitoneal spread of an appendiceal LAMN does not make it reportable because the peritoneal disease is also non-invasive. Does extraperitoneal metastasis of an appendiceal LAMN diagnosed prior to 2022 make it invasive disease and therefore reportable?
","LAMN diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 is not reportable even when it spreads or metastasizes according to our expert pathologist consultant. Spread of this neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. For this case to be reportable, the diagnosis must indicate “carcinoma” or “adenocarcinoma.” Pre-2022, LAMN is not reportable even when treated with surgery and chemotherapy. LAMN is reportable starting with cases diagnosed in 2022.
","2023" "20230006","SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures: How are Surgery of Primary Site and the Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures data items coded when patient has total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy for an endometrial primary during the same procedure? Also, how would these data items be coded for a vaginal primary in a surgical scenario? See Discussion.
","The 2023 SEER Manual instructions contain a new note in Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure, Coding Instruction 6, regarding bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) when performed for hormonal effect for breast, endometrial, vaginal, and other primary cancers. While we have observed BSO being performed for breast primaries, we do not recall ever seeing a statement for endometrial or vaginal primaries regarding a “BSO being done as hormonal manipulation” when scheduled either with or without a hysterectomy being performed simultaneously. As a result, we are not clear exactly when a BSO would be captured in the Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedure field for these gynecologic primary sites.
Also, if these types of procedures are Hematologic Transplant And Endocrine Procedures, are they also captured and coded in the Surgery of Primary Site codes that directly relate to those same organs? Does timing have any effect on the coding of either field?
","For a primary endometrial or ovarian cancer, record the oophorectomy/BSO procedure using the appropriate Surgery of Primary Site code that includes oophorectomy/BSO when done as part of first course of treatment (surgical resection). If performed for hormone effect, also record in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures data item. For other primary sites whose Surgery of Primary Site codes do not include oophorectomy/BSO, record it in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures data item when performed for hormone effect. Document information in the appropriate text fields.
Candidates for risk-reducing BSO may include those with hereditary syndromes (such as BRCA mutations) or genes that carry a substantially increased lifetime risk of ovarian malignancy or hormone-sensitive cancers including estrogen-dependent cancers, like breast cancer, ovarian cancer and endometrial (uterine) cancer that rely on estrogen to develop and grow.
","2023" "20230005","SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Radiation Treatment Modality: How is Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT), a form of molecular therapy, coded when used to treat neuroendocrine tumors? See Discussion.
","The 2023 SEER Manual indicates PRRT should be coded in the Other Therapy field per coding instruction 2.d. Likewise, SINQ 20180106 instructs to code PRRT as Other Therapy, while the discussion portion clearly outlines the radioactive nature of this modality.
Would PRRT be best coded as a radioisotope in the Radiation Treatment Modality--Phase I, II, III field rather than in the Other Therapy field?
","For cases diagnosed in 2023 and later, Update to the current manual: Assign code 13 (Radioisotopes, NOS) in Radiation Treatment Modality--Phase I, II, III for PRRT.
We will make this change in the next version of the SEER Manual.
","2023" "20230004","SEER Manual/Laterality--Kaposi Sarcoma: If both arms are involved with Kaposi sarcoma and no other sites, how is laterality coded? See Discussion.
","Per Solid Tumor Manual Other Sites Rule M6, despite the number of areas of involvement, any presentation of Kaposi sarcoma is always a single primary. The primary site is skin using the Kaposi Sarcoma for All Sites Coding Guidelines (Appendix C, 2023 SEER Manual).
Does SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual Laterality Coding Instruction #4 preclude the use of code 4 [Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis...] if a patient presents with KS involvement of only both arms or only both sides of the face?
","Assign Laterality code 4 (Bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary) in the situations you describe. Skin of upper limb and shoulder and Skin of other and unspecific parts of the face are listed as paired organs in the table Sites for Which Laterality Must Be Recorded In the 2023 SEER Manual.
","2023" "20230003","SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion.
","SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.
SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer.
SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable.
Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful.
","Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor.
Equivalent to ""Diagnostic for"" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to ""Diagnostic for"" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104.
","2023" "20230002","First Course Therapy/Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: What is the correct surgical code for irreversible electroporation ablation of the prostate diagnosed in 2021?
","","Assign code 17 for irreversible electroporation ablation of the prostate when there is no tissue submitted to pathology for a 2021 or 2022 case.
Assign code A170 for a 2023 case.
","2023" "20230001","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when two separate squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) tumors, one in the left upper lobe (LUL) and one in the right lower lobe (RLL), are diagnosed? The tumors are separated by an interval occurring right hilar lymph node biopsy proving metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma without a clear description of a corresponding interval occurring lung tumor. See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with a biopsy-proven 12/2020 LUL SCC treated with radiation only, followed by a right hilar lymph node biopsy in 07/2022, that proved “metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma” per pathology and treated with radiation, followed by a biopsy-proven 12/2022 RLL SCC to be treated with immunotherapy only. The imaging never definitively identified a lung tumor that can be assumed to be a primary adenocarcinoma tumor. In 06/2022, a PET scan only described a “strongly PET positive Rt inferior hilar LN vs infrahilar pulmonary mass,” as well as the subsequently biopsy-proven SCC in the RLL (12/2022 SCC primary). The biopsy path indicates this was a right hilar lymph node metastasis and does not indicate this is an infrahilar pulmonary mass. No other PET positive pulmonary lesions were seen at the time.
The oncologist’s assessment indicates the right hilar node was the only positive finding on the biopsy, and it was unclear if this right hilar node metastasis was from the left lung or if the primary was “not detectable.” The oncologist summarized this as a LUL lung lesion radiated for SCC, a right hilar lesion radiated for adenocarcinoma, and a RLL lung lesion on pathology found to be SCC.
Should the interval occurring metastatic adenocarcinoma be accessioned as a separate lung, NOS primary based on the histology difference? While the Solid Tumor Rules do not apply to metastasis, the oncologist did treat these three malignancies separately and does not indicate the hilar lymph node metastasis was felt to be from either SCC primary.
","Abstract three primaries based on this scenario.
1 – 2020, SCC LUL lung
2 – 2022, Adenocarcinoma lung, described as metastatic pulmonary, based on biopsy of right hilar node (Rule M8)
3 – 2022, SCC RLL lung (Rule M11)
","2023" "20220049","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many cases should be abstracted for a patient with 2022 wedge biopsy of right upper lobe acinar predominant lung adenocarcinoma and wedge biopsy of right lower lobe lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma if there is concern for diffuse spread throughout the lungs secondary to the lymphangitic carcinomatosis and possible diffuse pneumonic type of adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.
","Acinar predominant adenocarcinoma measures at least 12 mm and involves wedge biopsy margins, while the lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma measures 11 mm and does not involve the margins of that separate specimen. Pathologist also notes, “CT findings of diffuse coarse reticular nodular opacity, these findings may represent pneumonic type adenocarcinoma/diffuse pulmonary involvement or intrapulmonary metastasis. Both of these scenarios have the corresponding stages of pT4 (if thought to be ipsilateral) or M1a (if thought to also involve the contralateral lobe).”
Patient declined any further treatment and transitioned to hospice before expiring less than 1 month after wedge biopsies.
It is unclear if Rule M6 would apply to these two specimens with different subtypes since this scenario is not specifically addressed in the M rule definitions.
","Abstract two separate primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of Table 3 using Rule M6 in the Solid Tumor Rules (September 2021 Update). They represent two subtypes/variants of the same NOS histology. When coding histology, tissue from pathology takes precedence over imaging, including when stated as differential diagnoses based on the CT scan, as noted by the pathologist in this example.
","2022" "20220048","First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Other Therapy: Should all therapies given as part of a clinical trial be coded as Other Therapy (NAACCR #1420), or only those that cannot be classified in one of the other treatment categories (systemic therapy, surgery, radiation) or as ancillary treatments? Does it matter what is listed in SEER*Rx under Primary Sites or Remarks regarding FDA approvals? See Discussion.
","The SEER Manual states that the Other Therapy data item identifies treatments given that cannot be classified as surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, or ancillary treatment; and the instructions for code 2, Other-Experimental, say to assign this for any experimental or newly developed treatment, such as a clinical trial, that differs greatly from proven types of cancer therapy. Does this mean that only unclassifiable treatments should be coded in Other Therapy, even if given as part of a clinical trial?
For example, if a patient is given a drug as part of a trial that is categorized in SEER*Rx as immunotherapy, should it be assigned both Immunotherapy (NAACCR #1410) code 1 and Other Therapy code 2, or only coded in Immunotherapy since it is classified as such? How should a clinical trial drug be coded if it has a treatment classification in SEER*Rx, but the type of cancer being treated is not listed under the Primary Site or Remarks sections as being FDA approved? A real case scenario is atezolizumab given for colon cancer as part of a trial; this drug's category is Immunotherapy in SEER*Rx but colon is not listed under Primary Sites or in the Remarks detailing FDA approvals.
","When a drug is being administered as part of a clinical trial and it is not yet approved as treatment for the cancer site for which it is being administered, code in Other Therapy. Do not code it as Immunotherapy (for the example provided).
While a drug may be approved to treat one type of malignancy, it may be in clinical trials to determine its value in treating other malignancies. Coding as immunotherapy is misinformation in this case since there are other types of approved immunotheraputic agents.
","2022" "20220047","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: Is a patient with 2020 neck mass, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), p16-negative, who then had a biopsy of the right tonsil (C09.9) in July 2022, SCC p16-positive, one or two primaries? Is this coded to 8070/3 using pre-2022 rules or a new, second primary p16-positive, 8085/3. See Discussion.
","History provided by the oncologist
Right neck mass since 2019; 04/07/20, initial biopsy p16-negative SCC, delay of treatment due to patient preference, agreed to biopsy of tonsil and work-up August 2022; right tonsil biopsy: p16-positive, G2 SCC, nodal mass at that time >6 cm with extensive extranodal extension, Stage III (cT2, cN3, cM0, p16-positive); based on this history, was staged as a tonsil primary and p16-positive.
Patient details
1. March 2020, CT neck and chest revealed a 0.5 x 2.7 x 2.3 cm low-density necrotic nodal mass at right neck level 2 suspicious for metastatic disease. There was a slight asymmetric increased size of the right palatine tonsil. There are a few sub-4 mm pulmonary nodules which are nonspecific.
2. April 7, 2020, FNA of right neck mass with pathology revealed p16-negative SCC
3. April 20, 2020, PET/CT revealed 3 x 2 cm right-sided level 2 node with FDG avidity
4. May 5, 2020, flexible laryngoscopy showed no obvious primary lesion
5. May 2020, after evaluation by a medical oncology, patient declined any treatment
6. June 17, 2022, return visit in medical oncology after PET/CT demonstrates significant progression in the neck; patient definitively declines chemo, but would like surgical opinion. Now has more rapidly progressive disease with skin breakdown and weeping from malignant lesion right neck.
7. June 22, 2022, radiation oncology consultation
8. July 15, 2022, tonsil biopsy: Invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated with LVI, p16-positive
9. Patient now agreeing to treatment with radiation: Tooth extractions 8/30/2022, radiation planning 9/14/2022
10. Patient consulted with cancer specialist who explained surgery is not recommended given level of extranodal extension and risk of seventh cranial nerve paralysis and fistula formation with surgical excision and who recommended chemoradiation
11. September 9, 2022, patient presented for radiation CT simulation/treatment planning and informs treatment team. Patient declined/refuses concurrent chemotherapy despite recommendations from two cancer institutions.
","Abstract a single primary of the tonsil. The diagnosis date is April 7, 2020. Assign 8070/3 for the histology.
Metastases were found in 2020 before the primary of tonsil was determined in 2022. The oncologist information confirms this.
","2022" "20220046","First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Other Therapy: Should IMC-A12 (Cixutumumab) be coded as Immunotherapy/Biological Response Modifier (BRM) treatment? See Discussion.
","IMC-A12 (Cixutumumab) is listed as a BRM agent in SEER*Rx, but the Remarks section indicates it should be coded as Other Therapy until there is FDA approval. It is unclear if FDA approval was ever given for this agent. We are mainly seeing it given for prostate primaries.
","Code Cixutumumab as Other Therapy. Cixutumumab is still in clinical trials and not approved by FDA yet. Though it is classified as an immunotherapy agent, it is not approved.
","2022" "20220044","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code for a uvula (C052) primary with histology of squamous cell carcinoma, conventional (keratinizing) and p16 result is negative? See Discussion.
","The Schema ID for C051 (soft palate, NOS) and C052 (uvula) is Oropharynx (either 00100 or 00111 depending on p16). The Solid Tumor Rules Manual includes these site codes are under Table 4: Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue site group for histology coding. We are aware of the notes that allow coding of 8086 for keratinizing SCC, HPV-negative for sites listed in Table 5 only. However, it seems like C051 and C052 were incorrectly omitted from Table 5 (mis-categorized under Table 4). Can we code 8085 for 8086 for C051 or C052 based on p16/HPV status?
","Assign code 8071/3 for keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma. Codes 8085 and 8086 are only valid for the Head and Neck sites listed in Table 5 beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 and forward.
","2022" "20220043","First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Melanoma: How are the three Neoadjuvant Therapy data items (Neoadjuvant Therapy, Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response, Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect) coded when a patient is diagnosed with melanoma in the lymph nodes with no primary skin site identified? The physician gives immunotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy with planned and carried out surgical resection of involved lymph nodes following completion of immunotherapy. There is no ""planned definitive surgical resection of the primary site"" as no primary site was found,
","","Assign code 0 to each of the three Neoadjuvant Therapy data items in this situation.
We will add an example to the coding instructions for these data items in the next release of the manual.
","2022" "20220042","First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy: How should Lutathera be coded? CoC states XRT- Radioisotopes and SEER states Other Treatment.
","Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities.
","Update to the current manual: Code Lutathera as radiation (isotopes NOS code 13). We will make this change in the next version of the SEER manual.
","2022" "20220041","Primary Site/Histology--Intrahepatic Duct: How are primary site and histology coded for cholangiocarcinoma cases when the pathology only shows a liver tumor and other involvement. See Discussion.
","A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology?
","Assign C221 (intrahepatic bile duct) as the primary site for cholangiocarcinoma (8160/3). Our expert GI pathologist confirms that even when intrahepatic bile ducts are not specifically mentioned, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma originates in the intrahepatic bile ducts.
","2022" "20220040","Laterality--Brain and CNS: Can Laterality be coded as 5 (midline) for a sella turcica meningioma (or tuberculum sellae meningioma) when no other statement regarding tumor laterality is documented? See Discussion.
","Laterality is often not noted for these sella turcica meningiomas; therefore, Laterality is often coded as 9 (Unknown). Because the sella turcica appears to be a midline structure in the base of the skull, is Laterality code 5 (midline) more appropriate when additional information is unavailable?
","You may assign code 5 (Paired site: midline tumor) for laterality of a meningioma of the sella turcica (C700).
The 2022 SEER manual states in Laterality coding instruction 5: Assign Laterality code 5 only when the primary site is C700, C710-C714, C722-C725, C443, C445. Do not assign code 5 to sites not listed in 5.a.
Note that code 9 is for paired sites and there is no information concerning laterality.
Document laterality information in the appropriate text field. Note: Laterality does not factor into the CNS Solid Tumor rules.
","2022" "20220039","Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is “squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia” equivalent to a diagnosis of “high grade squamous dysplasia?” See Discussion.
","A conjunctival biopsy final diagnosis is squamous mucosa with moderate to high grade dysplasia. The diagnosis comment states that immunostains were performed and confirm squamous histology. This seems to imply a high grade squamous dysplasia, rather than a non-reportable high grade dysplasia. Does this case meet the criteria for reportable high grade squamous dysplasia?
","Squamous mucosa with high grade dysplasia is the same as high grade squamous dysplasia in the conjunctiva and is coded to 8077/2.
","2022" "20220038","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the histology code for sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophilla in the left thyroid and papillary thyroid carcinoma in the right thyroid? See Discussion.
","The left thyroid lobectomy/isthmusectomy returned a diagnosis of sclerosing mucoepidermoid carcinoma with eosinophina, 6.5 cm, replacing nearly the entire left lobe of the thyroid.
The patient has a completion thyroidectomy of the right lobe and returned the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.5 mm, in maximum dimension.
The endocrinologist describes it as ""co-exsisting"" and states the tumor is iodine non-avid.
","Abstract two primaries and assign code 8260/3 (papillary adenocarcinoma, NOS) to the right thyroid using Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule H14, and 8430/3 (mucoepidermoid carcinoma) to the left thyroid as these are separate tumors with different histology types according to WHO Classification of Tumors of Endocrine Organs, 4th edition.
","2022" "20220037","Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code of a primary papillary epithelial tumor of the sella (PPETS)? See Discussion.
","The pathology report states this is a rare entity described in case reports and not incorporated into the WHO classification of tumors. A subsequent endocrinology note stated “papillary tumor, benign by path; tumor was not an adenoma; based on one Mayo study, the recurrence risk is low.”
","Assign code 8000/0. This is an emerging histology and not yet recognized by the World Health Organization. Document the details in text fields. It might also be useful to document this SINQ question in text.
","2022" "20220036","Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion.
","Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type.
Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive.
Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)?
","Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086.
WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case.
","2022" "20220035","
Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is histology coded for a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) diagnosis with multiple components? See Discussion.
","Examples:
Bladder TURB: Invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma with poorly differentiated (40%), lipoid (5%), and sarcomatoid (55%) components.
Bladder tumor base TURB: Invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma with poorly differentiated (65%) and sarcomatoid (30%) components.
The Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, histology coding rules, say to code the most specific histology or subtype/variant, regardless of whether it is described as majority, minority, or component. Poorly differentiated (8020) and sarcomatoid (8122) are both urothelial subtypes, but there is no rule to instruct how to code a tumor/tumors with multiple urothelial subtypes.
","Code histology as 8120/3 in the two examples using Note 1 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, instruction 1 of the Coding Histology section. The subtypes/variants or components must describe a carcinoma or sarcoma in order to code a histology described by those terms.
","2022" "20220034","First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: Is the first round of systemic therapy coded as first course of therapy or is it all the therapy given to achieve remission for a lymphoma case with multiple treatments? See Discussion.
","Lymphoma case diagnosed in 2021: The patient had first round of systemic therapy as documented in the treatment plan and a post-chemotherapy PET scan that showed residual disease. The patient then had a different combination of systemic therapy and still had some residual disease. The patient was given a third round of different combination of systemic therapy in preparation for stem cell transplant. According to the physician post-stem cell transplant note, the patient achieved complete remission.
Is the first course of therapy the first round of systemic therapy only or is it all the therapy given to achieve remission? It seems like only the first round of systemic therapy is first course of therapy for both leukemia and lymphoma in the hematopoietic manual. I thought all treatment for all hematopoietic cases was first course until remission achieved or progression was evident.
","Code all treatments the patient received as first course of treatment. For lymphoma and leukemia, first course of treatment may include first-line, second-line, consolidation, maintenance, salvage, etc., any treatment to achieve remission.
We have added this to the agenda for the 2024 updates to the Hematopoietic Manual and Database.
","2022" "20220033","When coding the Covid testing results, does SEER have any guidance on whether or not at home tests fall within reportability? For instance, if a medical provider says pt tested positive on an at home test, do we record that?
","","When you have information about home COVID tests, record this information. For example, if the home test was positive record as follows: COVID-19 rapid viral antigen test POS 08/09/2022
","2022" "20220032","Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is micropapillary serous borderline tumor reportable? Pathology states Testis (C621) radical orchiectomy: Micropapillary serous borderline tumor.
","","We consulted an expert genitourinary pathologist who advises that micropapillary serous borderline tumor of the testis is reportable. He states ""it is the same neoplasm as in the ovary. It arises from tissue (tunica vaginalis) surrounding the testis so is a paratesticular neoplasm.""
Please note: not all borderline tumors are reportable and this diagnosis is an exception because it is assigned /2 in ICD-O-3.2. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later.
","2022" "20220031","Tumor Size/Neoadjuvant Treatment: If a patient discontinues neoadjuvant therapy and then has surgery, how is the pathologic tumor size coded with the pathologic tumor size greater than the clinical tumor size? Currently, we are instructed to code 999 for the pathologic tumor size when neoadjuvant therapy is given; what happens when neoadjuvant chemotherapy is discontinued after 3 cycles (plan for 4 cycles)?
","","Assign 999 for pathologic tumor size when patient has received neoadjuvant therapy, even when neo-adjuvant therapy is not completed. Describe the details in text fields.
","2022" "20220030","Histology--Lung: Is it acceptable to code histology as 8042/3 for a 2020 lung primary when the pathology report states only ""oat cell carcinoma?"" See Discussion.
","In the old 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions section, oat cell carcinoma (8042) was listed as one of the obsolete terms that was no longer recognized for small cell carcinoma. That note is not in the current 2018 Solid Tumor Manual lung chapter, and ICDO-3.2 lists oat cell carcinoma as the preferred term for code 8042/3. Would rule H4, Note 2 apply -- only one histology present, if not listed in Table 3 use ICD-O and all updates, to code oat cell carcinoma as 8042/3?
","While oat cell carcinoma is an outdated term, if that is all the pathology report states, code histology as 8042/3.
Yes, Rule H4 applies: the diagnosis was a single histology. H4 instructs you to refer to the solid tumor H table, and if the term is not found there, check ICD-O and ICD-O updates. All possible histologic types that could occur in the lung may not be included in the table.
","2022" "20220029","Histology/Behavior--GI Tract: What is the difference between high grade dysplasia and severe dysplasia for tumors in the cervix and gastrointestinal (GI) tract? Are these terms synonymous with in situ/behavior code /2? See Discussion.
","In the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition, for the uterine cervix squamous intraepithelial lesions, there is related terminology for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion HSIL (CIN3) 8077/2 and it is severe squamous dysplasia; squamous cell in situ. However, in the online WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th edition, there is no related terminology for esophageal high-grade squamous dysplasia, 8077/2. Can you collect cases of severe dysplasia the same as cases of high grade dysplasia?
","According to a leading GI pathologist, severe dysplasia is equivalent to high grade dysplasia in the GI tract.
","2022" "20220028","Reportability/EOD--Ovary: Bilateral ovary shows gonadoblastoma with germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Pathology report clearly states in situ. Is this case reportable?
If this case is reportable, how would you code Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor and SEER Summary Stage (SS)? In situ code 000 for primary tumor and code 0 for SS 2018 is not given as an option.
","","Report germ cell neoplasia in situ (9064/2). Assign 999 for EOD Primary Tumor and assign 9 for SS2018.
This particular histology is in the Soft Tissue Abdomen and Thoracic schema where EOD PT 000 and SS2018 0 are not available. This histology will be moved to the Ovary schema after redefining certain schemas and thus making the more accurate choices for EOD and SS2018 available. The schema redefine is planned for 2024 implementation.
","2022" "20220027","Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--CNS: Is ALK-positive histiocytosis, primary site Central Nervous System (CNS), reportable, and is the correct histology code 9750/3? See Discussion.
","2022 case: Surgical Pathology Report-spinal cord tumor, biopsies: ALK-positive neoplasm most consistent with ALK-positive histiocytosis.
","Report this 2022 case of ALK-positive histiocytosis using histology code 9751/3, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, disseminated. Use text fields to document that this is a case of ALK-positive histiocytosis. This term may be assigned a new code once the 5th edition of the Hematopoietic WHO Blue Book is released.
","2022" "20220026","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Parotid: How is histology coded for a myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma of the parotid?
","Patient has a 2021 left parotidectomy showing myoepithelial carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma. Is this coded to myoepithelial carcinoma (8982/3) or carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma (8941/3)? It is unclear how to arrive at the correct histology code using the current Solid Tumor Rules.
","Code myoepithelial carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma as carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (CXPA) (8941/3) using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule H1 as this is a single histology. The WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., describes CXPA as a rare epithelial and/or myoepithelial malignance arising in association with a primary or recurrent pleomorphic adenoma. The histologic type of the carcinoma component is usually recorded, in this case, myoepithelial carcinoma.
","2022" "20220025","Reportability/Histology--Anal Canal: For cases diagnosed in 2021, is anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II reportable? There is conflicting information regarding the reportability for AIN II. SINQ 20210048 says to report AIN II but the 2021 SEER Manual Appendix E states intraepithelial neoplasia (8077/2 and 8148/2) must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable.
","","AIN II is reportable for 2021. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia.
The wording in Appendix E of the 2021 SEER manual (must be unequivocally stated as grade III to be reportable) was left over from earlier versions and is not correct for 2021 diagnoses. Follow the guidance in SINQ 20210048.
","2022" "20220024","Update to Current Manual/Residence at diagnosis: Would an exchange student be a temporary resident of the SEER area or a non-resident? See Discussion.
","A 17 year old exchange student was brought into the hospital with appendicitis. The patient had an appendectomy; there was no follow up treatment. 5/27/2006 pathology report of vermiform appendix: Adenocarcinoid appendix <5 mm tumor limited to appendix.
The patient has no record in Lexis Nexus and no social security number. The address is a post office box; additionally, the patient’s birthplace is Switzerland and is lost to follow up.
","Code the residence where the student is living for exchange students temporarily living in the U.S. Code the temporary address if known or the Post Office Box if unknown. We will add this scenario to the next release of the SEER manual.
","2022" "20220022","Tumor Size--Pathologic--Anus: In 2019, the pathology report of an anal canal squamous cell carcinoma stated the tumor size is 2.5 cm from proximal to distal (3.5 cm in circumference). Is the pathologic tumor size tumor size 025 or 035?
","","Based on the information provided, code the tumor size as 035. We asked an expert pathologist to review this question and she said to use the larger measurement. She also said ""the pathologist usually cuts the anus and rectum open like a tube; the “circumference” would be measured flat.""
","2022" "20220021","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned, and what M Rule applies, for a 2012 diagnosis of left cerebral transitional meningioma (9537/0) that transforms to an atypical meningioma (9539/1) in 2022? See Discussion.
","The patient underwent a resection of the transitional meningioma in 2012, but residual tumor was left behind. The patient was on surveillance until imaging showed growth of the residual tumor. The resection in 2022 proved atypical meningioma.
Rule M2, the first rule that applies, indicates this situation represents a single primary (a single tumor). However, Rule M4 states the transformation from a benign meningioma to a borderline meningioma would only be a single primary if the meningioma was a NOS.
This patient has microscopic confirmation of a meningioma showing different subtypes/variants (listed in Column 3, Table 6). Should this be accessioned as multiple primaries based on the transformation and distinctly different histologies?
","Non-malignant CNS rule M4 applies, this is a single primary. This scenerio is covered in Example 2: A meningioma 9530/0 transforms into an atypical meningioma 9539/1.
","2022" "20220020","Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for a thyroidectomy with final diagnosis of “Right lower lobe: papillary microcarcinoma, conventional type, 0.8 cm. Isthmus: papillary microcarcinoma, follicular variant, 0.2 cm. Left lobe: Papillary carcinoma, conventional, unencapsulated.” See Discussion.
","We were previously told that papillary microcarcinoma is coded to 8260 (papillary thyroid carcinoma) and not papillary microcarcinoma (8341). That is an area of confusion.
","Based on the information provided, code histology to follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (8340/3). The tumor is a mix of papillary and follicular variants.
","2022" "20220019","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for a papillary carcinoma, encapsulated with columnar cell features? See Discussion.
","There is an ICD-O histology code for papillary carcinoma, columnar cell (8344/3) as well as papillary carcinoma, encapsulated (8343/3). Per Rule H13, the terms “with features of” may be used to identify a subtype.
Considering these two subtypes, and knowing there is no specific histology code for this combination, is the first rule that applies H17 (code the numerically higher histology code)?
","Code to papillary carcinoma, encapsulated (C73.9) (8343/3) using Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule H11, code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The usage of features is describing the cellular architecture of the encapsulated papillary carcinoma and does not necessarily indicate a specific histologic type. We consulted with our endocrine specialist pathologist who agrees and indicated terminology used in thryoid neoplasms is inconsistent.
","2022" "20220018","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for the following thyroid primary with multiple tumors abstracted as one primary diagnosed prior to 2021? See Discussion.
","2016 Total thyroidectomy, Multifocal
-Dominant Tumor: Right Lobe, Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)
-Tumors two through five: Three tumors Papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3), and one tumor Papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3)
-An additional tumor: Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (8343/2)
","Code this multifocal thyroid carcinoma, single primary, as papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant (8340/3) using Solid Tumor Rules, Other Sites, Rule H13 that says to code the most specific histologic term. We consulted with our endocrine specialty pathologist and when there is a mix of papillary and follicular variants, assign 8340.
Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features is coded as 8349/1 beginning in 2021. According to the WHO Classification of Endocrine Organs, 4th edition, it was formerly classified as non-invasive encapsulated follicular variant of PTC (FVPTC) (8343/2) but was reclassified based on extremely low malignant potential.
","2022" "20220017","Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for a thyroid resection showing papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant with oncocytic features with 30% of largest tumor (right) is tall cell variant and both foci contain benign multinucleated giant cells? See Discussion.
","There is an ICD-O histology code for papillary carcinoma, tall cell (8344/3) as well as papillary carcinoma, oxyphilic cell (8342/3). Per SINQ 20150045, the term oncocytic is synonymous with oxyphilic in this context.
The term “variant” can be used for the Other Sites (non-updated STR sites) primaries when the ICD-O-3.2 (or ICD-O-3 for older cases) includes the term “variant” in the histology name. The MPH General Instructions did not include the term “variant” as a term that can be used to code histology.
","Code papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant with oncocytic features to papillary carcinoma, tall cell (C73.9) (8344/3). The WHO Classification of Endocrine Organs states that this variant is composed of cells that are as tall as they are wide, and show abundant eosinophilic (oncocytic-like) cytoplasm. Tall cells must account for greater than or equal to 30% of all tumor cells.
","2022" "20220016","Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for a follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive, oncocytic variant of the thyroid? See Discussion.
","There is an ICD-O histology code for follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive (8335/3) as well as follicular carcinoma, oxyphilic cell (8290/3). Per SINQ 20150045, the term oncocytic is synonymous with oxyphilic in this context.
The Multiple Primaries/Histology General Instructions and histology rules do not include the term “variant” as a term that can be used to code a further histologic subtype. The term “variant” can be used for the Other Sites (non-updated STR sites) when the ICD-O-3.2 (or ICD-O-3 for older cases) provides the term “variant” in the histology name.
","Code follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive, oncocytic variant of the thyroid to follicular carcinoma, oncocytic variant (8290/3). The term ""variant"" is commonly used in thyroid histologies and if appropriate, used to determine histology code. The WHO Classification of Tumors of Endocrine Organs, 4th edition, lists synonyms for 8290/3 as Hürthle cell carcinoma; oncoycytic carcinoma; oxyphilic carcinoma; follicular carcinoma, Hürthle cell type; and follicular carcinoma, oncocytic variant.
","2022" "20220014","Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: How is Surgery of Primary Site coded when a path specimen is labeled as a “staged excision” for a cutaneous melanoma. See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed on biopsy with lentigo maligna melanoma of the nasal dorsum. The only available documentation of the subsequent surgery is a single pathology report with the nasal dorsum “staged excision (debulking specimen)” and four additional “staged excision” specimens of the same site.
Is it safe to assume this is a Mohs surgery? Would it be safe to assume staged excisions of sites other than skin of face, are also Mohs surgery?
","Interpret a ""staged excision"" for cutaneous melanoma as a type of Mohs surgery.
Skin surgery codes are currently under review and revision. Document details in available text fields.
","2022" "20220013","Reportability/Histology--Kidney: What is the histology and behavior of a papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity? See Discussion.
","Patient had a partial nephrectomy with final diagnosis of papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity. Diagnosis comment states: Papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity is currently considered to be a histologic variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma; however, recent studies suggest that it has a very indolent clinical behavior.
","Report papillary renal neoplasm with reverse polarity as 8260/3. According to the WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition, this is a distinctive pattern of papillary renal cell carcinoma that has been recently recognized. These tumors have recurrent mutations of KRAS, differing from typical papillary renal cell carcinoma. We recommend that you include with reverse polarity in your histology text to differentiate this entity from others classified in 8260/3.
","2022" "20220012","EOD 2018/Lymph Nodes--Corpus Uteri: Are lymph nodes found on imaging post-surgery included in Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes if surgery is already completed? See Discussion.
","11/16/20: Patient diagnosed with endometrial cancer on by MRI of the pelvis; 11.5 cm uterine mass consistent with cancer with no lymphadenopathy.
1/6/21: Patient had a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Operative report stated patient had mildly enlarged bilateral pelvic nodes.
Path report: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with invasion of the serosa. Five bilateral pelvic nodes were sampled and negative. Originally, staging had patient as node negative.
1/22/21: Patient had post op imaging done that showed metastatic retroperitoneal, aortocaval, and possibly left iliac lymph nodes. Physician changed staging to include the lymph node involvement.
","EOD includes all information available within four months of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression or upon completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment, whichever is longer. Since the imaging was within the four-month window, and the nodes could have been positive during surgery but not assessed by the surgeon, use the information from the imaging.
Assign code 600 for EOD Regional Nodes for involvement of the aortocaval and retroperitoneal nodes (para-aortic nodes), size unknown.
","2022" "20220011","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a ""slash"" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion.
","For example:
-ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term
-bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS)
As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly.
","If possible, try to obtain further information.
If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously.
","2022" "20220010","EOD 2018/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Myeloid Sarcoma: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded for a myeloid sarcoma with multifocal skin involvement? See Discussion.
","Patient has a diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma presenting as multiple erythematous papules and nodules on back, chest, right arm & shoulder. Oncologist did not mention any evidence or suspicion of an associated AML diagnosis.
HemeRetic schema EOD Primary Tumor Note 1 states that myeloid sarcoma can be coded as localized (code 100) or systemic (code 700). It is not clear what would qualify as systemic disease for myeloid sarcoma.
","Assign code 100, localized, using the 2018 EOD Primary Tumor, HemeRetic schema, for the myeloid sarcoma with skin involvement since only the skin is involved. Use code 700, distant or disseminated, when multiple organs are involved.
","2022" "20220009","First Course Therapy/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: What code should be used for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site in 2020 in situations affected by the pandemic when abstracting all sites? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient scheduled for left nephrectomy on 3/10/20 due to left renal papillary renal cell carcinoma diagnosed on 2/11/20 via needle core biopsy. Abstract indicated surgery was cancelled due to the pandemic. Abstract also indicated the surgery was not rescheduled.
","There is no available code that fits this situation. We recommend assigning code 6 (Surgery of the primary site was not performed; it was recommended by the patient’s physician, but was not performed as part of the first course of therapy. No reason was noted in patient record.) and documenting the situation in a text field.
","2022" "20220008","Reportability/Histology--Soft Tissue: Is atypical spindle cell neoplasm, primitive myxoid mesenchymal tumor of infancy (PMMTI) from the soft tissue of the leg in August of 2019, reportable?
","","Primitive myxoid mesenchymal tumor of infancy (PMMTI) is reportable. PMMTI is listed in the new WHO 5th edition Classification of Soft Tissue and Bone Tumors under round cell sarcomas. This is a variant of BCOR sarcomas. There is a new ICD-O histology code assigned for cases diagnosed in 2022 or later (9368/3). Code this 2019 case to round cell sarcoma, undifferentiated 8803/3. Use text fields to explain the details.
","2022" "20220007","Histology: Is there any guidance on using STRATA Oncology testing (molecular tumor profiling tests), such as StrataNGS and StrataEXP, to code SSDIs, histology, etc? I do not see anything in STR, SEER Program Manual, SINQ, or CAnswerForum. We are seeing the testing with our 2021 paths.
","","We recommend that you do not use information from these molecular tumor profiling tests until they become a standard diagnostic tool. If/when that happens, we will add information to the various manuals.
","2022" "20220006","Histology/Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a 2021 diagnosis of “neuroepithelial tumor with PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, not elsewhere classified” found during a right thalamic mass resection? See Discussion.
","Patient has a remote history of a right thalamic mass status-post two resections; reported as malignant oligodendroglioma (pathology not received) and chemo/radiation therapy, who recently presented with persistent headaches. Imaging revealed a 3.4 cm heterogeneous lobulated right thalamic mass with coarse calcifications and a probable cystic component.
Pathologist indicates the histologic and immunophenotypic features of this neoplasm are that of relatively circumscribed neuroepithelial tumor without high grade features (mitotic activity, microvascular proliferation, necrosis). Molecularly this neoplasm is characterized by a PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, which has recently been proposed to be a distinct neuroepithelial tumor entity with a broad histological spectrum.
","Assign 8000/1. Neuroepithelial tumor with PATZ1-EWSR1 fusion, not elsewhere classified, is not recognized as a distinct entity at this time. It is not listed in ICD-O-3.2 or in the 5th edition of the WHO CNS classification.
","2022" "20220005","Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion.
","A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.
","Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. ""At most"" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that ""at most"" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are ""educated guesses"" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care.
","2022" "20220004","First Course Treatment/Cancer-directed Treatment: What information can registrars use to determine disease progression and whether treatment counts as first course treatment? See Discussion.
","Is a physician’s statement of progressive disease adequate to determine disease progression in coding first vs. second course treatment? Can an increase in tumor burden (i.e., a change in overall stage) be used by the registrar to determine disease progression?
Often, determining disease progression is difficult as there are no guidelines in the SEER Manual related to this topic. It seems a physician’s statement of progressive disease should always be accepted. However, that statement is not always available. While it seems an increase in tumor size alone would not be “progressive disease” as tumors will continue to grow, can registrars use an increase in tumor burden to make this determination?
The instructions for coding first vs. second course treatment are clear when a treatment plan is changed, but determining whether there has been disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure can be difficult without a physician’s assessment.
For example, a patient was diagnosed with a newly diagnosed resectable pancreatic cancer; the documented treatment plan was for upfront chemotherapy, followed by repeat staging, followed by pancreatectomy. The patient completed 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, but the physician noted that the CT scan shows progressive disease, and the plan was to start a new treatment regimen with Abraxane, Gemzar, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) (Cyberknife). The patient completed the additional chemotherapy, radiation, and proceeded to the initially planned surgery. The pathologist staged this as yp disease, but the surgery appears to be second course treatment, and we would not code the surgery, or collect the staging (yp staging) since the physician stated this was progressive disease. The classification as yp staging can be misleading, since the resection is technically after neoadjuvant treatment, but is not collected per our guidelines. In this case, is it correct to code first course treatment as FOLFIRINOX only?
","Determining first course treatment is based on knowing the treatment plan and its course as to whether it was completed as initially planned. Read the medical record, scans, labs, and physician notes. First course of therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed as planned. Alternatively, first course of therapy ends when there is documented disease progression, recurrence, or treatment failure. A change to a drug in a different group or a change to a different treatment modality indicates the end of the first course of treatment. While a physician/clinician statement of progression, additional imaging, or other procedures that assess treatment efficacy, or increase in tumor burden can be used to denote progression, recurrence, or failure, a change to the initial treatment plan is a signal to to the registrar to suspect the end of first course of therapy. Once the initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is subsequent treatment.
In the scenario provided, code FOLFIRINOX as first course of treatment. Based on the information provided, the Abraxane, Gemzar, and SBRT are second course and everything that followed that is second or subsequent course. The physician noted progressive disease and a new treatment regimen was started -- this is a clear indication of the end of the first course of treatment. The planned treatment course was FOLFINOX and surgery. Once that initial treatment plan is changed, everything after the change is no longer first course of treatment. Use text fields to document the details.
","2022" "20220003","Reportability/Histology--Anus: Are 2021 diagnoses of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II or AIN II-III reportable in patients with a known history of AIN II or AIN II-III diagnosed prior to 2021? See Discussion.
","Patient has a history of AIN I/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) dating back to at least 2015, was diagnosed with AIN II-III in 12/2019, and then diagnosed again with AIN II-III in 08/2021. There is no indication of treatment or a disease-free interval for this patient.
SINQ 20210015, while not an exact match to this case, implies there is no clear disease-free interval for these AIN diagnoses, so it is the same non-reportable neoplasm diagnosed prior to reportability (12/2019). However, there was a diagnosis of a reportable neoplasm in 2021, so it also seems possible this would be accessioned as a reportable tumor based on a diagnosis of reportable tumor diagnosis in 2021.
With the reportability changes for these intraepithelial neoplasia II/II-III tumors, these situations will arise more frequently.
","Report AIN II and AIN II-III cases when initially diagnosed in 2021 or later. Do not report retrospective cases; that is, cases with diagnoses prior to 2021 with continuation of AIN II or AIN II-III extending into the reportable period.
","2022" "20220002","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Cervix: For cases diagnosed 1/1/2022 and later, how is histology coded for the following three cervix cases relating to p16? See Discussion.
","The 2022 SEER Manual indicates the p16 status (positive or negative) can be used to code more the specific histology for squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). However, the histology coding instructions in the Other Sites schema have not been updated and the 2022 SEER Manual does not cover all situations commonly encountered in the registry. Does the clarification regarding p16 apply to these other situations?
For cases diagnosed beginning 1/1/2022, assign histology based on new codes and terms for the examples of cervical cancer using the available p16 results as follows.
1. Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS (C53._) (8484/3)
2. Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-associated (C53._) (8085/3)
3. Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-independent (C53._) (8086/3)
The 2022 SEER Manual states: Beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 forward, p16 test results can be used to code squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). Use the available results as the rules for Other Sites have not been updated yet. The SSDI Manual data item p16 for Cervix schema also states that p16 is based on testing results and not a physician statement. We can address these situations in a future version of the Solid Tumor Rules. The Other Sites rules will provide document priority when coding hsitology: biopsy vs. resection, cytology vs. histology, primary site vs. mets or regional site.
","2022" "20220001","Solid Tumor Rules (2022)/Histology--Bladder: Can the term configuration be used to code the more specific histology for bladder primaries diagnosed 2022 and later? See Discussion.
","In the September 2021 Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules update, the term configuration was removed from the “DO NOT CODE histology when described as” list. However, it was not added as a term that can be used to code the more specific histology for urinary tumors.
Can configuration be used to code the more specific histology 8130 (papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma, tumor configuration: papillary?
","Beginning with cases diagnosed 1/1/2022, the term ""configuration"" can be used to code histology for urinary sites only. At the request of the AJCC urinary experts, the instructions were changed to allow configuration to be used to code histology.
","2022" "20210078","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Skin Cancer: How many primaries are assigned for sebaceous carcinomas using the Solid Tumor/Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules? Does this scenario represent eight separate primaries? See Discussion.
","Details
4/15/2018: Right abdominal wall mass excision: infiltrating sebaceous carcinoma. Noted to have a history of Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome.
1/21/2019: Two left upper back mass excisions and two lower back (laterality not specified) mass excisions: infiltrating sebaceous carcinomas
8/7/2019: Excision of multiple sebaceous carcinomas from the right posterior back, left posterior thigh, left anterior abdominal wall, left anterior thigh, right scrotum, right lower abdominal fold, all positive for sebaceous carcinoma on pathology report
9/30/2020: Right gluteal mass, left gluteal mass, back (NOS) excisions: sebaceous carcinomas.
10/14/2020: Right back excision: sebaceous carcinoma. Op note: History of Lynch syndrome with multiple sebaceous carcinomas, recurrent back mass, site of prior mass resection.
10/18/2021: Right thigh excision: sebaceous carcinoma
Proposed primaries using MP/H Other Sites Rules
#1: 4/15/2018: C445-1
#2: 1/21/2019: C445-2, separate from #1 per M8, same as 1/21/19 C445-9 per M18
#3: 8/7/2019: C445-1, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2 per M8
#4: 8/7/2019: C447-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2 per M12
#5: 8/7/2019: C632, separate from #1 per M10, separate from #2-#4 per M11
#6: 9/30/2020: C445-2, separate from #1 & #3 per M8, separate from #2, #4 & #5 per M10
#7: 9/30/2020: C445-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3 & #5 per M10; I do not think the back, NOS (C445-9) is a new primary per M18.
#8: 10/18/2021: C447-1, separate from #2, #4 & #6 per M8, separate from #1, #3, #5 & #7 per M10
","Assign the number of primaries following the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. Based on sites, laterality and or timing there are 8 primaries. This is similar to SINQ 20061112 that advised to follow the Multiple Primaries/Histology rules for sebaceous carcinoma. According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 5th edition, there is a 30-40% risk of local tumor recurrence, and 20-25% risk of distant metastasis. In only one instance did a physician refer this as a recurrence in the available notes.
","2021" "20210077","First Course Therapy/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How are Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect coded when the neoadjuvant therapy was not completed? Does the entire course of neoadjuvant therapy need to be completed before we can code these fields? See Discussion.
","Example: The neoadjuvant therapy was started, the patient progressed, the treatment plan was altered, and a new course of systemic therapy was started; surgery was cancelled.
01/25/21 Bile duct brushing: Malignant cells present, adenocarcinoma
01/26/21 Surgical oncology consult: Currently unresectable; recommend neoadjuvant chemo
02/22/21-3/29/21 Neoadjuvant Gemzar & Abraxane, two cycles, discontinued due to disease progression
04/17/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: CT positive for disease progression, need to change Rx
04/26/21 Second change of treatment due to progression: Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and 5FU
07/16/21 Surgical oncology re-eval: Unresectable, advise 4-6 months of chemo followed by radiation
","Assign code 3 (Progressive disease (PD)(per managing/treating physician statement) for Neoadjuvant Treatment--Clinical Response and code 7 (Neoadjuvant therapy completed and planned surgical resection not performed) for Neoadjuvant Treatment--Treatment Effect. These are the best choices under the circumstances. Use text fields to record the details.
","2021" "20210076","Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is a 2021 case of ecchordosis physaliphora (lesion within the prepontine cistern) on brain MRI reportable?
","","Ecchordosis physaliphora is not reportable.
","2021" "20210075","Reportability: What American College of Radiology Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) can be used to determine reportability? See Discussion.
","LI-RADS (liver), PI-RADS (prostate), and TI-RADS (thyroid) can be used to determine reportability. BI-RADS (breast) and Lung-RADS cannot be used to determine reportability. Can these systems below to determine reportability?
C-RADS (from CT colonography)
NI-RADS (head & neck)
O-RADS (ovarian-adnexal)
","The following cancer cases are reportable unless there is information to the contrary.
–Liver cases with an LI-RADS category LR-4 (reportable since 2021) or LR-5 (reportable since 2016)
–Prostate cases with a PI-RADS category 4 or 5 (reportable since 2017)
The following are not reportable without additional information.
–Breast cases designated BI-RADS 4, 4A, 4B, 4C or BI-RADS 5
–Lung cases designated Lung-RADS 4A,"" 4B, or 4X
–Liver cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-3
–Colon cases with only C-RADS information (C-RADS category C4 is not reportable by itself)
–Head and Neck cases with only NI-RADS information (NI-RADS category 3 is not reportable by itself)
–Ovarian or fallopian tube cases with only O-RADS information (none of the O-RADS categories are reportable without additional information)
–Thyroid cases with only TI-RADS information (none of the TI-RADS categories are reportable without additional information)
","2021" "20210074","Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Therapy--Pancreas: How are the neoadjuvant items coded for a patient who has unresectable pancreatic cancer and starts chemotherapy but will be evaluated after X cycles to see if patient may become a surgical candidate?
","","Assign the neoadjuvant therapy data items as if the patient had neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant Therapy data item would be coded either code 1 or 2 depending on whether the chemotherapy was completed or not. In this case, they are a surgical candidate by having the chemotherapy with the plan from the beginning to evaluate the chemotherapy after X cycles to see if surgery can be performed. After the patient is evaluated, update the abstract as needed.
","2021" "20210073","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Corpus Uteri: How many primaries should be reported when a hysterectomy identifies primary endometrial carcinosarcoma (8980/3) and the endometrium has a background of endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) (8380/2)? A tumor size is provided for the carcinosarcoma, but not the background EIN.
","Patient was diagnosed with carcinosarcoma of Mullerian origin on omental/pelvic biopsies in March 2021. First course treatment was neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by July 2021 resection showing residual primary endometrial carcinosarcoma with cervical stromal invasion and involvement of bilateral tubes/ovaries, omentum, and mesenteric nodule. Additional findings included endometrium with background endometroid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN).
","Abstract this case as a single primary and code histology as carcinosarcoma (8980/3). The carcinosarcoma is intermixed with the EIN making this a single primary coded to the invasive histology. EIN is a precursor of endometrial carcinoma in the WHO Classification of Female Genital Tumors, 5th edition. Carcinosarcoma of the uterus is described in the literature as an aggressive variant of endometrial carcinoma characterized by unusual histologic features including discrete malignant epithelial and mesenchymal components (carcinoma and sarcoma).
","2021" "20210072","Hormone Therapy--Breast: How are hormone therapy (HT) and other related data items coded when a patient had a previous breast primary and is still on HT when diagnosed with a new breast primary? See Discussion.
","In this scenario, we record that HT began for the second primary on the date of diagnosis, and the Systemic/Surgery Sequence ends up usually being coded 4 because the HT continues even if the specific agent may be changed. This does not seem to meet the definition of neoadjuvant therapy for the second primary so we approach the staging and grade coding as just clinical/pathological? For example, if the tumor size at surgery is a little larger than estimated on imaging, we would use the pathologic size for our staging. The tumor size and grade of the second primary are not being changed by the ongoing HT. Do we have the right approach?
","For this example: 1. Code HT as treatment on the date of diagnosis for the second primary. 2. Code Systemic/Surgery Sequence as 4. 3. Do not code neoadjuvant data items as neoadjuvant started/completed. The HT given would not qualify for neoadjuvant therapy since the intent of the HT was not neoadjuvant. The HT would affect the second primary, but it is still not neoadjuvant. 4. Code clinical and pathological tumor size accordingly, based on the imaging and the pathological findings. 5. Code Extent of Disease data items based on the pathological findings since pathological findings take priority over clinical and this is not neoadjuvant therapy.
","2021" "20210071","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of invasive mammary neuroendocrine tumor (NET), grade 2/3? See Discussion.
","Table 3 (Breast Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists “Neuroendocrine tumor, well-differentiated” of the breast as histology 8246/3. There is no entry for a grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor of the breast in Table 3.
The pathologist did not indicate the neuroendocrine tumor was poorly differentiated (or it would otherwise be a small cell carcinoma). The pathologist noted “By current WHO criteria, this tumor is characteristic of a mammary neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2. These invasive tumors have similar prognostic and predictive features of invasive ductal carcinoma of the same grade and stage.”
","Assign code 8249/3, neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2 based on the pathologist statement of mammary neuroendocrine tumor grade 2. According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast, 5th edition, neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is an invasive tumor characterized by low/intermediate grade.
If the histology term is not listed in the Solid Tumor rules, the instructions state to also check ICD-O and updates. Per ICD-O, NET, grade 2 is coded 8249/3. Breast Table 3 will be updated for 2023.
","2021" "20210070","Histology/Reportability--Digestive System: Is “neuroendocrine neoplasm” reportable? See Discussion.
","We are confused by SINQs 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051. The latter two indicate that “well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasms” of the duodenum and appendix are reportable because they’re synonymous with neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Yet 20180097 states “primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm” is NOT reportable unless there is documentation that it’s being used as a synonym for Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor (PHNET). In addition, we see in the 2021 ICDO-3.2 update that only “poorly differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm” is listed with behavior code /3 and noted to be reportable for 2021+ on the companion annotated histology list. Does reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depend on primary site, differentiation terminology within the histology name, or something else? Our casefinding staff is hoping for a general reportability guideline to follow when they come across “neuroendocrine neoplasms” NOS. For example, we have a 2020 pathology report for a core biopsy of a soft tissue pelvic mass with final diagnosis of low grade neuroendocrine neoplasm; there is no further clarification as to whether it is felt to be primary or metastatic, and we have no other associated records for this patient in our central registry.
","Reportability of neuroendocrine neoplasms depends on primary site, terminology, and differentiation. ""Neuroendocrine neoplasm"" is an umbrella term for a variety of neuroendocrine tumors and carcinomas.
Neuroendocrine neoplasm, not otherwise specified (NEN, NOS) is not reportable as in your example unless it is being used as a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET), as with digestive system tumors. According to WHO Classification of Digestive System Tumors, 5th ed., NENs of the appendix and liver are epithelial neoplasms with neuroendocrine differentiation, including well-differentiated tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs).
The guidance in SINQ 20180097, 20150001, and 20140051 is still valid.
","2021" "20210069","EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Intrahepatic Bile Duct: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor (PT) be coded for invasion of or into (but not through) the visceral peritoneum for an intrahepatic bile duct primary? See Discussion.
","Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage. EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage.
","Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor for now.
We have confirmed with AJCC that ""invasion of"" but not ""through"" the visceral peritoneum maps to a T2 and not T3. Involvement of the visceral peritoneum for Summary Stage is Regional and does not make a distinction between ""invasion of"" or ""invasion through."" Any involvement of the visceral peritoneum is regional.
To correct this situation would require a new code, which would derive a T2/RE. That code will be added to the updates for 2023.
Code 500 will derive the appropriate Summary Stage of 2 (Regional). We are aware that this will derive the incorrect T; however, there is no work around at this time that will derive the correct T and Summary Stage, so we are defaulting to deriving the correct Summary Stage.
","2021" "20210068","Mets at Diagnosis Fields/Primary Site--Lymph Nodes: How are the Mets at Diagnosis fields coded when the metastatic adenocarcinoma involves only one lymph node area and the primary site is unknown? See Discussion.
","In 2018, patient has lymph node metastasis confined to left retroperitoneal area; core biopsy was done which showed metastatic adenocarcinoma, unknown primary site. There are no other sites of disease found. Should I code Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s) as 1, and the others such as bone and lung as 0?
","In a situation like this with one area of metastatic involvement and an unknown primary, if there is no further information, we advise that the metastasis are ""regional"" until/unless proven otherwise. With this in mind, code the Mets at Diagnosis fields as 0, including the Mets at Diagnosis--Distant Lymph Node(s). This case should continue to be worked up to identify the primary site. If a primary site is identified later, update the abstract accordingly. In the meantime, use text fields to describe the situation.
","2021" "20210067","First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further?
","","Clarify the statement of ""excellent"" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields.
","2021" "20210066","2021 SEER Manual/Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: What is the correct surgery code for a left upper lobe (LUL) wedge resection (confirming adenocarcinoma) followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection? Is the correct Surgery Code 22 since the lingula was not resected (not the whole LUL Lung)? Or should the appropriate surgery code be 33 (this surgery suffices to code to a lobectomy with the mediastinal lymph node dissection)?
","","Assign code 22 for LUL wedge resection followed by a lingular-sparing LUL lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection. Code the lymph node surgery in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. We obtained input from an expert who agrees with this code. He states a lingula-sparing lobectomy is best coded as a segmentectomy because it is the same as an apical trisegmentectomy.
","2021" "20210065","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Histology--Lung: Should there be an exception to the Solid Tumor Rules for Lung to allow coding a more specific histology described by ambiguous terminology, when the only pathologic workup done is a cytology report? Due to the unique nature of lung cases which are often diagnosed on imaging and cytology without more definitive pathology, we are seeing many cases where the existing Solid Tumor guidelines result in very generic NOS histology codes. For example, lung mass found on imaging with a fine needle aspirate of a lymph node, final diagnosis ""positive for malignancy"" and comment ""consistent with squamous cell carcinoma."" See Discussion.
","The Solid Tumor histology coding guideline #3 for Lung states that an ambiguous histology can only be coded over an NOS when a physician clinically confirms it or the patient receives treatment based on the ambiguous histology; similar instructions exist in rules H3 and H12. We are in a central registry and don't typically have access to physician notes or treatment plans; unfortunately our hospital abstracts rarely document physician confirmation of ambiguous histology and we are uncertain if we should accept their coding of the more specific histology, assuming they did find clinical confirmation that was not documented. If not, our understanding of the Solid Tumor rules is that the histology in such a case would have to be coded as malignancy NOS (8000/3) per the non-ambiguous final diagnosis, and that we cannot use the more specific but ambiguous squamous cell carcinoma since we don't have definite clinical confirmation. We also have a fair number of cytology-only lung cases without any hospital information to clinically confirm an ambiguous histology.
","Code histology as squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070/3) using Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H3 if no other information is available. Rule H3 states: If the case is accessioned (added to your database) based on a single histology described by ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented, code that histology.
","2021" "20210064","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries should be reported when patient has right fallopian tube high-grade serous carcinoma and bilateral serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? See Discussion.
","Patient is diagnosed March 2021, with malignant pleural effusion, clinical impression supports either endometrial or tubo-ovarian primary and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given. Subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) in July, shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right fallopian tube and bilateral ovaries, as well as bilateral STIC. Summary Stage lists tumor site as right fallopian tube, with the serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) noted under “additional findings.”
Should the contralateral (left-sided) STIC be accessioned as an additional primary, per MP/H Rule M8, the since fallopian tubes are listed in Table 1 as Paired Organs with Laterality?
","Abstract as multiple primaries per rule M8. There are bilateral fallopian tube primaries. It sounds like the ""primary"" tumor was identified in the right fallopian tube with bilateral spread of disease. Incidental STIC was also identifed in the left fallopian tube. Do not record the STIC as another primary.
","2021" "20210063","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries should be reported and for which primary site(s) when pathologist identifies bilateral ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma with involvement of the left fallopian tube (also showing serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC))? See Discussion.
","Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC).
Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction.
If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11.
","Bilateral ovarian tumors are a single primary per M7. Abstract the STIC as a second primary.
SINQ 20210025 is intented to address situations with confliciting information about the primary site. The answers remain unchanged in 2012009 and 20210025.
","2021" "20210062","Histology/Reportability--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case that is compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome with multilineage dysplasia (MDS-MLD) reportable, and if so, is the histology plasma cell myeloma or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? See Discussion.
","HL-7 e-path report, Final Diagnosis
High normocellular marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis, multilineage dyspoiesis, compatible with MDS-MLD and involvement by plasma cell neoplasm/myeloma, IgA kappa positive, approximately 20-25% of total cellularity present. See comment.
Comments
Correlation with other relevant laboratory (amount and type of serum and urine paraprotein levels, renal function tests, serum calcium level, and anemia) and radiologic (lytic bone lesions) findings is recommended for complete interpretation. Dyspoiesis of all lineages is seen and the findings are compatible with low grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-MLD), assuming that other possible causes are excluded. Correlation with cytogenetic and molecular studies is recommended for complete characterization
","This case is reportable. Assign MDS, NOS (9989/3) based on the information provided for this case. “Compatible with” can be used for reportability; however, it cannot be used for assigning histology. There is no confirmed diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma/neoplasm; the comment specifically addresses the need for further evaluation of this case.
","2021" "20210061","First course treatment/Update to current manual: Should the instruction regarding expectant management in the 2021 (and 2022) SEER Manual include how to code for the patient’s decision to proceed with expectant management? See Discussion.
","Currently, First Course Therapy instruction for expectant management (also referred to as active surveillance, watchful waiting, etc.) instructs one to code 0 or 00 (not done) for all data items when the physician opts for expectant management.
We find that the treatment decisions can be driven by the patient, physician, or combination of both patient and physician depending on the options presented.
","Instructions for First Course of Therapy include using the documented first course of therapy (treatment plan) from the medical record. While a patient may weigh in on the treatment decision, the physician is responsible for developing and managing the treatment plan including closely watching a patient’s condition but not giving treatment unless symptoms appear or change.
We can add language to a future manual to clarify.
","2021" "20210060","Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a 2021 diagnosis of a type A microscopic thymoma reportable? See Discussion.
","ICD-O-3.2 lists microscopic thymoma as benign (8580/0) and thymoma, type A as malignant (8581/3).
January 2021: Left central neck node dissection for thyroid carcinoma with thymic tissue showing an incidental type A microscopic thymoma, described as a small (<0.2 cm) focus. Diagnosis comments further indicate this is morphologically consistent with a microscopic thymoma (type A).
","Report this case as type A thymoma. We consulted an expert physician and his advice on this specific case is to interpret it as a malignancy and report.
Use text fields to record the details of this case.
","2021" "20210059","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for an invasive melanoma with multiple subtype/variants? See Discussion.
","Rule H8 of the Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules states that multiple variants of melanoma in one tumor are rare and a question must be submitted to Ask a SEER Registrar (AASR) for the correct histology code. However, our facility has seen a number of these cases in 2021 and would like to track the official answer and make it available to all in this format.
How should histology be coded for the following?
1. January 2021 diagnosis of left shoulder invasive malignant melanoma, histologic type: nodular and desmoplastic types per College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary of punch biopsy.
2. May 2021 shave biopsy of left arm invasive malignant melanoma, superficial spreading and nodular variant is listed in the CAP summary.
3. June 2021 diagnosis of right cheek invasive malignant melanoma, histologic subtype: superficial spreading and nodular seen on CAP summary of shave biopsy.
","According to our dermopathology expert, code the histology to nodular melanoma 8721/3. There are numerous possible combinations of melanomas and the correct code depends on the types/variants present. We are currently working on a ""Combined/Mixed Histology Code"" Table for melanoma; however, it will likely not inlcude all possible combinations so continue submitting your questions to Ask A SEER Registrar.
","2021" "20210058","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the histology code and how many primaries are there based on a gastrohepatic lymph node biopsy that shows: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)-like transformation. If two primaries, what is the diagnosis date for each primary? See Discussion.
","4/28/21 PET: There is extensive widespread/multifocal hypermetabolic uptake within lymph nodes, skeleton, and spleen, compatible with malignancy. Differential diagnosis includes lymphoma and metastatic disease of indeterminate primary, with lymphoma favored.
4/28/21 Right retroperitoneal lymph node, needle core biopsy: Large B-cell lymphoma. See comment. Comment: The differential includes T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma and diffuse variant of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma. It is challenging to distinguish these two on the needle core biopsy. An excisional biopsy is recommended for a definite diagnosis if clinically appropriate. ADDENDUM: B-Cell Lymphoma, FISH: negative. No rearrangement of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 and no fusion of MYC and IGH.
5/14/21 Gastrohepatic lymph node, biopsy: Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) with T-cell/histiocyte rich diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. Focal in situ follicular neoplasia.
6/3/21 Medical Oncologist: Biopsy confirms that patient has a nodular lymphocytic Hodgkin lymphoma which has transformed into a T-cell rich DLBCL. This variant of Hodgkin disease is a good prognostic histology which generally behaves indolently, like a low grade lymphoma.
","We consulted with our expert hematopathologist who advised this is a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma (9659/3).
The diagnosis from 5/14/2021 states NLPHL. It also states there is T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like transformation. The WHO Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues demonstrates six different patterns to NLPHL, which are: A) 'classical' nodular, B) serpiginous/interconnected nodular, C) nodular with prominent extra-nodular LP cells, D) T-cell-rich nodular, E) diffuse with a T-cell-rich background, and F) diffuse, B-cell-rich pattern.
In this case, they are describing a NLPHL type E (diffuse with a T-cell rich background). The term used is ""T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-LIKE transformation. ""Like"" as used here means that it is like a transformation; if it was NLPHL transforming to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it would not have the word ""like"" in the diagnosis. This is a variant of NLPHL and not an actual transformation to another lymphoma. Even though NLPHL can transform to T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma, it is not the case here since the word ""like"" appears in the diagnosis.
We will update the histology in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to include these additional patterns.
","2021" "20210057","Reportability/Histology--Kidney: Is an oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (ORNLMP) reportable? See Discussion.
","Kidney, right interpolar neoplasm, partial nephrectomy: Oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (ORNLMP).
Within part B, right interpolar kidney neoplasm, the neoplasm shows oncocytic features, with abundant granular eosinophilic cytoplasm and enlarged vesicular nuclei with prominent central nucleoli. The cells are arranged in small nests and tubules with hypocellular fibrous stroma identified within the background. Scattered binucleated cells are present, and rare cells with irregular nuclear membranes are present. No perinuclear halos or prominent cell membranes are present. Given the histologic features, the neoplasm is best classified as an oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (ORNLMP).
","Oncocytic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential is not reportable.
","2021" "20210056","2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a left breast simple mastectomy identifies focal Paget disease of the nipple and 12 axillary nodes positive for metastatic lobular carcinoma (no primary lobular breast tumor identified)?
","","Abstract two primaries, one lobular carcinoma (8520/3) and another one Paget disease of the breast (8540/3) using the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M9: Abstract multiple primaries when the diagnosis is Paget disease with underlying tumor which is NOT duct. Example: Paget disease of the nipple with underlying lobular carcinoma are multiple primaries. Additionally, Table 2, Histology Combination Codes, Note 2 states: Lobular carcinoma and Paget are separate primaries (see Lobular carcinoma and any histology in Table 3 with exception of duct carcinoma/carcinoma NST/DCIS (and subtypes/variants) 8500 and Paget disease, in situ and invasive).
While not identified in the pathology of the mastectomy, the lobular carcinoma is likely underlying as it was identified in the axillary lymph nodes. The 2021 SEER Manual states: If the only pathologic specimen is from a metastatic site, code the appropriate histology code and the malignant behavior code (/3). The primary site and its metastatic site(s) have the same histology.
","2021" "20210055","Tumor Size--Pathologic/EOD 2018: How is Tumor Size--Pathologic coded when Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor is 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) and there has been no surgery to the primary site? See Discussion.
","The SEER Manual states to assign Tumor Size--Pathological code 000 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) for any schema. However, the definition of Tumor Size--Pathologic states that it records the size of a solid primary tumor that has been resected.
If the primary site has not been resected (does not meet the pathologic staging criteria), then it seems that Tumor Size Pathologic should be 999 when EOD Primary Tumor is coded as 800.
","Assign code 999 for Tumor Size--Pathologic when there is no surgery of the primary site. Code 999 includes ""No excisional biopsy or tumor resection done.""
","2021" "20210054","Tumor Size--Clinical/EOD 2018--Prostate: How is Tumor Size--Clinical coded when there is an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for another reason? See Discussion.
","SEER*RSA states EOD Primary Tumor should be coded to 800 for an incidental finding of prostate cancer on prostatectomy for other reasons.
The SEER Manual states to assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded to 800; however, the definition for Tumor Size--Clinical indicates clinical classification is composed only of diagnostic workup prior to treatment.
If there is no clinical workup for an incidental finding of prostate cancer, code 000 does not seem appropriate (does not meet criteria for clinical classification). Code 999 seems more appropriate for incidental findings during surgery for other reasons. The SEER Manual does not provide this exception in the current instruction.
","Assign code 000 for Tumor Size--Clinical when EOD Primary Tumor is coded 800 (No evidence of primary tumor). Code 000 indicates no tumor was found since there was no clinical workup to identify this incidentally found cancer. This is a special instruction for cases coded 800 in EOD Primary Tumor. Text fields can be used to record details.
","2021" "20210053","Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ALK positive (ALK+) histiocytosis involving the bone marrow and kidney reportable? See Discussion.
","2021 Bone marrow biopsy showed erythroid hyperplasia, increased histiocytes with hemophagocytosis and Factor XIIIa positive histocytic cells. Moderate cytoplasmic staining for ALK 1, consistent with bone marrow involvement of ALK-positive histiocytosis. A subsequent kidney lesion biopsy was also found to have ALK-positive histiocytosis. The patient was then treated with clofarabine.
Patient is 3 years old.
07/2020-Chart indicates patient presented in June with fevers and refusing to walk with pancytopenia, bone marrow biopsy showed no leukemia buthistiocytes. Impression: ALK positive histiocytosis involving BM and kidney.
10/2020 Bone marrow final diagnosis states right and left bone marrow aspirates and biopsies: No morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis (see Comments) - Multiple histiocytic collections with prominent hemosiderin; favor reactive - background normocellular bone marrow with maturing trilineage hematopoiesis.
The patient's prior bone marrow samples are reviewed (9/2020 and 7/2020). Similar to the September bone marrow sample, the current marrow shows numerous histiocyte collections with abundant associated hemosiderin deposition. These histiocytes have a stellate/dendritic appearance and lack the atypical features noted in the patient's marrow at diagnosis, favoring a reactive process. This impression is further supported by the lack of immunoreactivity for either Factor XIIIa or ALK1 among these cells. There is no convincing morphologic or immunohistochemical evidence of marrow involvement by the patient's previously diagnosed ALK+ histiocytosis within the sampled material. Of note, the marrow otherwise appears normocellular for the patient's age, indicative of ongoing marrow recovery post therapy.
It is not clear whether this would be equivalent to Langerhans cell histiocytosis, disseminated (9751/3) as there is not a statement of Langerhans cell or whether this is just histiocytosis, NOS and not reportable.
","Do not report this case of histiocytosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable.
","2021" "20210051","Primary site/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the correct primary site code for intra-ampullary and periampullary adenocarcinoma, C241 (8144/3) or C249? See Discussion.
","Ampulla, biopsy: High grade dysplasia with focal intramucosal carcinoma in a background of ulceration with acute and chronic inflammation.
Surgery pathology: Head of pancreas, duodenum, and distal stomach, pancreaticoduodenectomy-Ampulla, Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Grade moderately differentiated, 1.5cm. Tumor invades into duodenal submucosa. Lymphovascular Invasion: Foci suspicious for lymphovascular invasion identified. Perineural Invasion: Present.
Synoptic report: Tumor Site Intra-ampullary and peri-ampullary (mixed type). Histologic Type Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type.
There is not enough information regarding site in radiology reports or operative report. CT-A/P/C:The patient's known ampullary mass is not well visualized on this exam. No significant intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary ductal dilation is identified. The pancreatic duct is normal caliber.
","Assign C241. Ampulla (C241) includes both periampullary and intra-ampullary.
","2021" "20210050","EOD 2018/Extension--Testis: How is Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor coded if it appears limited to testis on scrotal ultrasound and is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to the orchiectomy when there is no residual tumor (staged as ypT0 disease) and in cases where there is residual tumor? See Discussion.
","Unless there is a biopsy that proves in situ tumor (EOD code 000, Tis) or extratesticular invasion into the scrotum, penis, or further contiguous extension (EOD code 700, T4), EOD Primary Tumor must be coded based on the PATHOLOGICAL assessment (orchiectomy). There are no other CLINICAL codes because the AJCC indicates imaging is not used for local T-categorization, and the EOD derives the AJCC TNM staging. If the case can not be coded to either EOD Primary Tumor codes 000 or 700 clinically, the only clinical code that seems to apply is 999 (Unknown).
We are seeing more cases treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to orchiectomy, especially in patients with distant metastatic disease. The EOD Manual indicates that clinical evidence takes priority over pathological evidencewhen neoadjuvant treatment is given, unless the extent of disease following neoadjuvant treatment is greater than pre-treatment clinical findings. If the clinical and pathological information are the same, code the extension based on the clinical information.
Do these general rules also apply to testis even though we cannot code CLINICAL findings for these tumors? If so, will EOD Primary Tumor be coded to 999 (Unknown) for any testis primary that is not in situ or invasive into the scrotum, etc., that is treated with neoadjuvant therapy? Or should the post-neoadjuvant PATHOLOGICAL assessment be coded for these tumors because the CLINICAL assessment would otherwise be unknown?
How is the EOD Primary Tumor coded for the following two cases?
1. Left testicular mixed germ cell tumor, biopsy-proven metastasis to a supraclavicular lymph node. The left testis contained a small mass on scrotal ultrasound. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved no residual primary tumor (ypT0). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinically unknown (even though it was clinically limited) or 800 (No evidence of primary tumor) because there was no pathological evidence of tumor following neoadjuvant treatment?
2. Right testicular mixed germ cell tumor with biopsy-proven inguinal lymph node metastasis. There was a palpable mass in right testis on physical exam (not described as fixed or involving scrotum). The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the post-treatment orchiectomy proved a residual 2 cm tumor limited to the testis without lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Is EOD Primary Tumor 999 because it is clinicallyunknown or 200 (PATHOLOGICAL assessment only - Limited to testis WITHOUT LVI)?
","Assign code 999 to EOD Primary Tumor for testis when neoadjuvant therapy is given and clinical assignment is unknown and the extent of the primary tumor is not fully assessed due to post neoadjuvant treatment effect as with the two case scenarios.
Both clinical examination and histologic (pathologic) confirmation are required by AJCC for clinical assessment and was not met in these scenarios.
While EOD Primary Tumor is based on pathologic assessment, the EOD general instructions are to code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension when the patient received neoadjuvant systemic therapy unless the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease. As there is neoadjuvant treatment effect and there is no clinical assessment, the primary tumor cannot be fully assessed.
","2021" "20210049","Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Leukemia: Is this the correct histology for a case of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with recurrent genetic abnormalities? If the only information was AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities,""what code would you use: AML, NOS (9861/3) or AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities (9896/3)? See Discussion.
","12/3/2020 Pathology: AML: Blasts 40% of nucleated cells. CD45 positive, CD34 negative, CD 117+,
CD13 positive, CD33 positive in 59.6% and HLA-DR was dim and myeloperoxidase was dim.
Cytogenetics normal karyotype. The next generation sequencing detected IDH 2p.(R172K)c515>A.
Because this was AML NOS, we consulted with the physician. The physician stated the patient had AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities""and the basis for the diagnosis was the IDH-2 mutation identified on Next Generation Sequencing. We assigned 9896/3, based on the physician's interpretation of the pathology. This histology is being questioned.
","We found that the term AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS""was incorrectly included as an alternate name with code 9896/3. We followed back with our expert hematopathologist and he stated that this should have been coded to 9861/3 (AML, NOS), for AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities, NOS. This alternate name has been added to 9861/3. (Note: The same alternate name has been removed from 9896/3).
IDH-2 is not listed as a genetic abnormality for any of the histologies listed in the database. It could be that this is a new genetic marker for one of the AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities that we are not aware of. Without further clarification on which histology the IDH-2 would indicate, you would have to default to 9861/3.
There are several histologies that are grouped as AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities.""All of these have specific genetics listed as part of the ICD-O-3 histology name.
9865: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(6;9)(p23;q34.1) DEK-NUP214
9866: Acute promyelocytic leukemia with PML-RARA
9869: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(3)(q21.3q26.2) or t(3;3)(q21.3;q26.2); GATA2, MECOM
9871: Acute myeloid leukemia with inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22); CBFB-MYH11
9877: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated NPM1 (2021+)
9878: Acute myeloid leukemia with biallelic mutation of CEBPA (2021+)
9879: Acute myeloid leukemia with mutated RUNX1 (2021+)
9896: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1); RUNX1-RUNX1T1
9897: Acute myeloid leukemia with t(9;11)(p21.3;q23.3); KMT2A-MLLT3
9911: Acute myeloid leukemia (megakaryoblastic) with t(1;22)(p13.3;q13.1); RBM15-MKL1
9912: Acute myeloid leukemia with BCR-ABL1 (2021)+
Of note, for the above histologies, since these are diagnosed solely based on genetics, diagnostic confirmation will always be 3. This instruction will be added to the Hematopoietic database for the 2022 update.
","2021" "20210048","Reportability--Anal Canal: Is a 2021 diagnosis of moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II) of the anal canal reportable? See Discussion.
","We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2).
","If possible, clarify with the pathologist/physician what is meant by ""moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II).""
If no further information can be obtained, report this case based on the diagnosis of ""AIN II."" Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia.
","2021" "20210047","Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Colon: Does the 2018 SEER Summary Staging Manual, Digestive System Sites, Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System, #1. b., Exception, include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)? This seems to be in conflict with Extent of Disease (EOD) 2018. See Discussion.
","We are preparing to send our hospitals a reminder that the behavior changes from 2 to 3 at the bottom of the basement membrane, and the T category changes from Tis to T1 at the bottom of the mucosa for colon and rectum carcinomas. We are confused by the wording of the Exception.
Distinguishing In Situ and Localized Tumors for the Digestive System
1.b. If the tumor has penetrated the basement membrane to invade the lamina propria, in which case it is localized and assigned Summary Stage 1 (localized) and for invasion of the lamina propria
Exception: Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes cancer cells confined within the glandular basement membrane (intraepithelial); includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.)
The text following (intraepithelial) is unclear. The question is: Does the text include in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma (involvement of the lamina propria and may involve but not penetrate through the muscularis mucosa) (penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior code 3.) mean the following:
Code 0 (behavior code 2) includes in situ plus intramucosal carcinoma. In situ plus intramucosal carcinoma is involvement of the lamina propria, which may involve (but not penetrate through) the muscularis mucosae. Penetration through the muscularis mucosa is behavior 3. If that is what the text above means, then it seems that the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Manual is saying colorectal tumors reported as: adenocarcinoma in situ, at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, high grade dysplasia/intramucosal adenocarcinoma in situ, focally intramucosal at the margin are to be coded behavior 2 and SEER Summary stage In situ (0) like the intraepithelial carcinoma tumors. However, it conflicts with the EOD Data for Colon and Rectum, Note 2, and SINQ 20210006. The text for both EOD Data for Colon and Rectum and SINQ 20210006 is clear. According to them, the above bulleted adenocarcarcinoma examples are coded SEER Summary Stage localized (1) and behavior 3. SINQ 20210006 states that: For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion So, intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3).
According to the text for EOD Primary Tumor, Colon and Rectum, Note 2 below, intramucosal, NOS involvement is invasive.
Note 2: Code 050 (behavior code 3) includes the following:
Intramucosal, NOS
Lamina propria
Mucosa, NOS
Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa
Thank you for your help clarifying the 2018 SEER Summary Manual Exception text above.
","For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal, NOS is a localized lesion. Intramucosal carcinoma is coded SEER Summary Stage 1 (localized) and (behavior code 3). The involvement of the following are assigned localized in Summary Stage and assigned a behavior code of 3.
Intramucosal, NOS
Lamina propria
Mucosa, NOS
Confined to, but not through the muscularis mucosa
The Exception you cite may need to be reworded. We will review for the next version of the Summary Stage manual.
","2021" "20210046","Reportability--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation synonymous with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, fibrosarcomatous, and therefore reportable for diagnosis year 2021 and forward? See Discussion.
","Patient has a 2021 skin excision showing an atypical spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation.
Per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, DFSP, NOS has a behavior code of /1, and DFSP, fibrosarcomatous has a behavior code of /3. There is no code listed for DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Transformation is not included as a term that can/cannot be used for the Other Sites Schema, but this type of DFSP is often described as DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. How do we code DFSP when transformation is used to describe fibrosarcomatous?
","Report DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation as it is synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition, fibrosarcomatous DFSP is a variant of DFSP and that fibrosarcomatous transformation is seen in approximately 10% of DFSP cases. It is characterized by an often abrupt transition of DFSP.
","2021" "20210045","Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Treatment: What codes should be used for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the neoadjuvant therapy is still in progress at the time the case is initially abstracted as with rapid reporting. There is no code for neoadjuvant therapy still in progress and code 9 generates an edit for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response.
","","Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and assign a code 9 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the treatment is still in progress. Revise these codes after the treatment has been completed.
We will update the manual to include these instructions.
","2021" "20210044","Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample.
SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation?
Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database.
","Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy.
SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3).
","2021" "20210043","Reportability--Fallopian Tube: Is a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC)? Does the designation of high or low grade have any effect on potential reportability? See Discussion.
","Patient has left salpingo-oophorectomy showing fallopian tube with focal high grade serous intraepithelial neoplasm.
In reviewing some journal articles, the term STIN is being used to describe both STIC and serous tubal intraepithelial lesion (STIL). We will likely continue to see this term used, so it would be nice to have some clarity.
","Serous tubal intraepithelial neoplasm (neoplasia) (STIN) is not equivalent to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Report STIN only when stated to be high grade. STIC is reportable. Do not report STIL.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, STIL and STIN are broad descriptive terms that reflect proliferation of epithelial cells with varying degrees of atypia, with the most developed, STIC, reflecting convincing neoplastic change.
","2021" "20210041","Reportability/Behavior--Paraganglia: Is a 2021+ diagnosis of paraganglioma reportable if the grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP) score falls outside the stated requirements for malignancy? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with a retroperitoneal paraganglioma on April 2021 mass resection. Final diagnosis included the comment: Based on the modified grading of adrenal pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (GAPP), the GAPP score is 1. Scores greater than or equal to 3 are malignant.
We are aware that paraganglioma is classified as malignant for cases diagnosed in 2021+, however it is unclear how the pathologist's interpretation of the GAPP score may affect the behavior of this case.
","Report retroperitoneal paraganglioma based on ICD-O-3.2 histology/behavior that lists paraganglioma, NOS as 8680/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and forward. While GAPP is a predictor of metastatic potential, it does not factor into behavior, thus reportability.
","2021" "20210040","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis ofmixed mucinous carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features in February 2021, left breast biopsies at 2:00 (3 cm from nipple) and 3:00 (8 cm from nipple) positions. Intraductal component was absent in those specimens.
Subsequent left breast total mastectomy in March 2021, provided a final diagnosis of multifocal mixed mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, 27 and 8 mm and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), low to intermediate grade, with focal mucinous features. The Staging Summary lists Histologic Type as mixed mucinous carcinomafor both foci of invasive carcinoma. DCIS is also noted as present negative for extensive intraductal component.
There does not appear to be a clear instruction or code for this histology. As a central registry, we are unable to follow-up with the pathologist regarding this diagnosis.
Just to be clear, there are 2 foci of invasive mixed mucinous carcinoma in this case measuring 27 mm and 8 mm. The DCIS component measured 56 mm.
","If the DCIS is separate from the mucinous, apply the breast M rules and abstract TWO primaries per M14. Since all we know of the “mixed mucinous” is there is mucinous present, code 8480/3.
","2021" "20210039","Multiple primaries/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a 2021 right tongue base biopsy showing diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) a new primary following a prior history of hairy cell leukemia-variant (HCL-v) (9591/3) in 2011? See discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, later classified as hairy cell leukemia-variant.
Right cervical node biopsy in 2020 proved HCL-v and a subsequent 2021 right tongue base biopsy showed DLBCL. The tongue base biopsy path includes the comment, patient has history of HCL-v, but the morphology and flow cytology features are different from the patient's previous right cervical node biopsy. This DLBCL likely represents a second de novo lymphoma, but cannot exclude an unusual transformation of the prior HCL-v.
Per Heme Rule M7, abstract a single primary when a more specific histology is diagnosed after an NOS if the Heme DB confirms the same primary. The histology code for HCL-v, 9591/3 is a non-specific code, but it seems like a specific histology. The Heme Calculator does say 9591 and 9680 are the same primary, but we are unsure if that is correct for this case of HCL-v followed by DLBCL.
","Abstract two primaries. This is a transformation from a chronic disease (the Hairy Cell Variant) to an acute disease (DLBCL). Although this rare situation is not clearly covered in the Hematopoietic rules, the fact that this was originally a Hairy Cell Leukemia variant means that the DLBCL is a new primary.
","2021" "20210038","Update to current manual/First course treatment--Neoadjuvant treatment: How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded when neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans but treatment was never completed. See Discussion.
","Example: Breast case where first course treatment plan is neoadjuvant therapy and surgery after. The patient was hospitalized during neoadjuvant therapy, elected hospice, and later died, so the neoadjuvant therapy was never completed, surgery not done. How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded in this situation as neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans. I coded neoadjuvant therapy to 2 - started but not completed, but there are no codes to properly explain the clinical response and therapy treatment effect as the patient did not complete neoadjuvant therapy. Should I use code 9 for clinical response and treatment effect or should this be left blank for this particular case?
","Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response in this case. We will update the SEER manual to allow code 2, in addition to code 1, in Neoadjuvant therapy when Clinical Response is coded 8. We will also add instructions covering a case such as this one.
Assign code 7 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect and use text fields to record the details. We will add instructions to the manual for this scenario.
","2021" "20210037","Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Thyroid: Is category Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) 4 (4a/4b) or TI-RADS 5 on imaging diagnostic of thyroid cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states either of these categories as the diagnosis date?
","","Answer revised 3/31/2022
Do not report cases based only on the TI-RADS category. The most recent information from ACR on TI-RADS indicates that neither TI-RADS 4 nor TI-RADS 5 is clearly defined as malignancy. TI-RADS 4 is ""moderately suspicious"" and TI-RADS 5 is ""highly suspicious"" but they do not specify what they are suspicious for. We need more information to determine reportability.
","2021" "20210036","Update to current manual/Lymphovascular invasion: Are lymphvascular invasion and lymphvascular space invasion on a pathology report the same thing or do they describe different things?
","","We confirmed with our expert pathologist consultant that lymphovascular invasion and lymphovascular space invasion are synonymous.
","2021" "20210035","Update to current manual/Lymphovacular invasion--Thyroid: Are psammoma bodies only recorded as vascular invasion in papillary thyroid cancer cases? See Discussion.
","For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only).
","If you are collecting lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for thyroid cases, record ""vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only)"" as vascular invasion (code 1, Lymphovascular Invasion Present/Identified) in the LVI data item. Use a text field to specify that this is vascular invasion by psammoma bodies.
","2021" "20210034","Reportability/Histology--Endometrium: Is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable?
","","Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia is equivalent to atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium (8380/2) and thus reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. Our expert pathologist consultant confirmed this for us.
","2021" "20210033","Reportability--Liver: Is a diagnosis of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-Treatment Response (LR-TR) viable nodule seen on imaging and treated with Y-90 radiotherapy reportable? See Discussion.
","Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.
Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.
Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.
","Do not report LR-TR viable as a new primary. LR-TR viable is a component of the Li-RADS Treatment Response algorithm designed to assess response for path-proven or presumed (e.g., LR-4, LR-5, LR-M) malignancy after locoregional treatment for hepatocellular cancer. LR-TR viable indicates it met the criteria as a viable tumor.
","2021" "20210031","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are lipomas of the spinal column reportable as a benign tumor of the central nervous system (CNS)? This is seen occassionally at our pediatric facility.
","","Spinal cord tumors (including lipomas) are reportable when they arise in the spinal dura or nerve root. The tumor must be of the spinal cord itself or within the spinal cord dura. Spinal cord tumors are reportable when they arise in the intradural space. A reportable intradural tumor can be either intramedullary or extramedullary. Extramedullary intradural spinal tumors are reportable. A spinal tumor originating in the extradural space is not reportable. If it is outside the dura, it is not reportable because it would be outside the CNS. They are not reportable when they arise in the peripheral nerves.
","2021" "20210030","Primary site--Breast: Patient was diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast. Site of mass is 2:00 to 3:00. What is the correct site code, C504 upper outer quadrant (UOQ) or C50.8 (overlapping)?
","","Assign C504, UOQ, for a left breast primary mass at 2:00 to 3:00. See the illustration in the SEER Coding Guidelines for breast, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/AppendixC/Coding_Guidelines_Breast_2021.pdf
","2021" "20210029","Multiple primaries--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a patient with peripheral blood initially showing chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), lymph node biopsy showing granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), and bone marrow biopsy showing acute myeloid leukemia (AML) one or two primaries? See Discussion.
","1. 12/11/2020 Peripheral blood revealing what was thought to be chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL1 positive (9875/3). Patient was started on Hydrea while waiting for further tests on 12/12/2020.
2. 12/14/2020 Lymph node biopsy showed granulocytic sarcoma (9930/3), but flow cytometry states it is similar to that seen in the patient's peripheral blood and is consistent with nodal involvement by myeloblasts.
3. 12/15/2020 Bone marrow biopsy reads acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3), likely arising from BCR/ABL1 positive chronic myeloid leukemia. There is a note on this pathology from medical oncologist that says: This will dramatically change the course of his treatment, likely with a TKI.
4. 12/17/2020 Sprycel started. Patient was weaned off Hydrea.
According to Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. It lists 9930/3 when simultaneously (or after) with 9861/3. Technically, it was two days before, but I feel like I should and could count that as simultaneously because of Note 1 that says: These sarcomas are solid manifestations of the associated leukemia. For example, when acute myeloid leukemia and myeloid sarcoma are diagnosed simultaneously, the myeloid sarcoma is the result of myeloid cells migrating from the bone marrow or blood into tissue. It is part of the disease process for the acute leukemia. Also, the providers never mention granulocytic sarcoma
Based on that, I think that #2 & #3 above are the same primary, which would be acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3).
Per the hematopoietic database, 9875/3 transforms to 9861/3. Therefore, Rule M8 is confusing with the ""only one"" biopsy. Does this rule apply because the 9875/3 was from peripheral blood only? But peripheral blood is coded in Diagnostic Confirmation as histology.
Rule M9 reads: The two diagnoses are likely the result of an ongoing diagnostic work-up. The later diagnosis is usually based on all of the test results and correlated with any clinical information. Because that is truly what I think is happening here though that rule states there is no available documentation. If you do not have any documentation, how would you know you are dealing with a chronic and an acute diagnosis?
M10 does not apply.
According to Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days and there is documentation of two biopsies. The chronic myelogenous leukemia only had peripheral blood and not a bone marrow, lymph node or tissue, but that is counted as positive histology in diagnostic confirmation, but I don't know if that is kept as a separate field/thought. I would not code a peripheral blood smear as with a surgical code or a surgical diagnostic and staging procedure code, so maybe that is what I should be thinking about and therefore would probably say Rule M8 and one primary.
","This is one primary based on Rule M3. Abstract as a single primary site for the granulocytic sarcoma and AML since they are both evaluating the blood/bone marrow, which are counted as one site. To count them twice would result in over counting primaries.
For Rule M9: This would not apply to your situation since you do have information on both the CML and the AML. We had to write in this rule for cases where you do not always have the information available.
In terms of the peripheral blood versus actually biopsy: In this case, do not count the peripheral blood as a separate site. Rule M8 does fit your case, coding this as the AML and having this as one primary.
","2021" "20210028","Histology/Biliary tract--Ampulla of Vater: What is the histology code for Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion? See discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed on 01/2020, and primary site on the pathology report is Ampulla of Vater (C241). Synoptic Report states histology as: Intra ampullary papillary-tubular neoplasm in association with microinvasion.
I have reviewed the ICD-O-3 coding table and found histology Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (C25_) code 8503/2. Based on the Matrix principle (Rule F on the ICD-O-3), I will change the behavior to 3 and code as 8503/3. If I look in ICDO-3, Tubulopapillary adenocarcinoma is coded 8263/3.
","Assign code 8163/3. Based on the microinvasion, the correct term for this neoplasm is pancreatobiliary-type carcinoma. Unfortunately, WHO did not provide all synonyms or related terms for some of the new ICD-O codes. Pathologists may continue using non-preferred terminology as well.
","2021" "20210027","Reportability--Heme and Lympoid Neoplasms--Polycythemia vera: Is secondary polycythemia vera reportable? See Discussion.
","A physician stated the patient likely had secondary polycythemia vera due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions but that a polycythemia vera could not be ruled out. A JAK2 was ordered that was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. The patient was treated with hydrea.
According to SEER SINQ 20120049, secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. However, in this case, the patient was positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. Therefore, is this reportable? We looked for guidance in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database and found it confusing that secondary polycythemia vera was not mentioned or discussed under polycythemia vera in the database. The only thing we could find was secondary polycythemia NOS that was discussed under polycythemia.
","Abstract as a new primary for polycythemia vera, 9950/3.
JAK2 is commonly used to assess suspected polycythemia vera and in this case, the mutation is positive for V617F.
Based on the JAK2 results, this looks like a true polycythemia vera and not a secondary polycythemia.
","2021" "20210026","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion.
","The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma).
Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered.
Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility.
Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary?
","Abstract two primaries and assign
Primary 1: C772, 9699/3
Primary 2: C162, 9699/3
Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology.
Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3).
","2021" "20210025","Primary site--Ovary: What information takes precedence for coding the primary site in cases with high grade serous carcinoma that are clinically called ovarian but on pathology, the pathologist calls the primary site fallopian tube and the gynecology oncology/managing phsyician continues to call the cases ovarian. Both the ovary and tube are involved. Sometimes also referred to as ""tubo-ovarian.""
","","When the choice is between ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal, any indication of fallopian tube involvement indicates the primary tumor is a tubal primary. Fallopian tube primary carcinomas can be confirmed by reviewing the fallopian tube sections as described on the pathology report to document the presence of either serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) and/or tubal mucosal invasive serous carcinoma.
If there is no information about the fallopian tubes, refer to the histology and look at the treatment plans for the patient. If all else fails, you may have to assign C579 as a last resort. Use text fields to document the details.
For additional information, see the CAP GYN protocol, Table 1: Criteria for assignment of primary site in tubo-ovarian serous carcinomas.
","2021" "20210024","Primary Site--Vulva: What is the primary site of patient with an excision of a left vulvar cystic mass showing focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on 11/06/2020? See Discussion.
","Final Pathologic Diagnosis:
Vulvar cyst, excision: Focal mammary-type ductal carcinoma in situ, intermediate grade, arising within cystically dilated duct (See Comment)
Size of DCIS: 0.7 CM.
Margins: Negative.
Comment
Sections demonstrate a cystically dilated duct. Focally, at the periphery of the duct, there is a neoplastic monomorphic proliferation of ductal cells with intermediate grade nuclei. No associated necrosis is identified. Immunostains for GATA-3 and estrogen receptor are strongly positive within the neoplastic cells, supporting origin from mammary-like epithelium. Immunostain for p63 demonstrates preservation of a basal layer around the dilated duct, including the region involved by DCIS. Immunostain for cytokeratin 5/6 shows loss of expression within the DCIS. No stromal invasion is identified. The cyst appears to be completely excised.
12/01/2020 post op visit with surgeon:
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the left vulva in an excised cystic lesion.
PLAN: I reviewed the pathologic findings from the excision of the left vulvar cyst. This appears to be a cystic lesion in the mammary line with focal DCIS. It was excised completely with negative margins. It would not warrant any additional treatment except expectant management.
","Code the primary site to vulva. Use text fields to record the details.
According to the WHO classification, several types of primary vulvar mammary-like carcinoma have been reported. It is rare and is thought to arise from specialized anogenital mammary-like glands within the vulva. It does not arise from ectopic breast tissue and is does not represent metastatic breast carcinoma.
","2021" "20210023","Reportability/Terminology--Head & Neck: Is an ""evolving"" squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the left lower lip reportable?
","","For solid tumors, ignore the term ""evolving"" and apply the registry rules for reportability to this case. Squamous cell carcinoma of the vermillion border of the lower lip (C001) is reportable.
","2021" "20210022","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma one or two primaries and if one, is the histology 8147/3? See Discussion.
","Scenario: Patient had a transurethral resection of the prostate on 8-29-19, positive for basal cell carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation involving approximately 50% of tissue (determined not to be mets by consult). On 11-14-19, the patient had a prostatectomy positive for residual basal cell carcinoma and a small focus of infiltrating prostatic adenocarcinoma. According to AJCC, 8th edition, page 724, basal cell carcinoma of the prostate is 8147/3 and we ignored the small focus of adenocarcinoma. The above scenario was reported as two primaries (8090/3 and 8140/3), but we are thinking it is one.
","Abstract a single primary and code as 8147/3 using Rule M18 and Rule H17 of the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules. This is based on the findings of basal cell carcinoma of the prostate (8147/3) and adenocarcinoma (8140/3). We consulted with the Subject Matter Expert who advises that basal cell carcinoma and basal cell adenocarcinoma can be used interchangeably.
This updates previous consultation regarding this histology. The Other Sites rules will be updated for 2022 and include this information in the prostate histology table.
","2021" "20210021","EOD 2018/Lymph Nodes-EOD--Breast: Should Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes be coded as 150 (Clinical assessment only; Positive needle core biopsy/fine needle aspirate [FNA]) when the patient has a biopsy-proven, clinically apparent, movable ipsilateral axillary lymph node, but no evidence of involvement at surgery after neoadjuvant therapy? See Discussion.
","The Breast EOD Regional Nodes notes contain new clarification regarding the clinical assessment vs. pathological assessment codes, but the new Note 2 does not specifically indicate an exception for neoadjuvant therapy. However, if the pre-treatment lymph node core biopsy proved cN1 disease, and the post-treatment resection proved ypN0 disease, should the clinical assessment code (code 150) have priority over any pathological assessment code (including 200) since the involved lymph node was only clinically positive and not pathologically positive? Should an exception be added to Note 2 to address cases where neoadjuvant therapy is given, but the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment?
","The clinical assessment code takes priority over the pathological assessment code in this case because the clinical assessment was worse than the pathologic assessment. Although there was a pathological assessment, the clinical assessment is greater. According to the general coding guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy, code the worst information, which in this case is the clinical assessment.
The 2018 EOD General Instructions for EOD Regionals Nodes, instruction #4, addresses neoadjuvant therapy as follows. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the most extensive lymph node involvement documented.
A new note is being included for the 2022 updates. Exception: If patient has neoadjuvant therapy, and the clinical assessment is greater than the pathological assessment, the clinical assessment code takes priority.
","2021" "20210020","Behavior--Breast: Should the behavior change to /3, invasive, to get a case to clear edits? The histology of this breast case is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 8500/2. Lymph nodes are positive for micro-mets (0.2 mm-2 mm). SEER Summary Stage: 3, regional lymph nodes positive. This creates an edit for SEER Summary Stage due to the behavior code of /2, in situ.
","","Code the behavior to /3, not just to pass edits, but because this is an invasive case based on the positive lymph nodes.
For most cases, behavior is based on the primary tumor, but in situations like this where an invasive component cannot be found and there are positive lymph nodes, the /3 behavior is assigned based on the positive lymph nodes.
","2021" "20210019","Reportability/Histology--Cervix: Is a stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) lesion reportable? Is it reportable if it is invasive SMILE? What is the correct histology? See Discussion.
","Cervix, loop electrosurgical excision procedure: Cervix at transformation zone with stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE). SMILE is present at the ectocervical margin. An immunohistochemical stain* for p16 demonstrates strong, diffuse positivity in the lesional epithelium. A mucicarmine stain is also positive in the lesional epithelium, supporting the diagnosis of SMILE.
","Stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion (SMILE) of the cervix is not reportable. SMILE is a variant of adenocarcinoma in situ and is coded 8140/2. In situ neoplasms of the cervix are not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, p16 is positive and there is a high Ki-67 proliferation index.
If SMILE is stated to be invasive, it is reportable, as any other invasive cervical malignancy would be reportable.
","2021" "20210018","Reportability/Histology--Head & Neck: Is carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate diagnosed in 2017 reportable? Was this rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) missed in Casefinding? If reportable, what is the histology code?
","","Carcinoma cuniculatum of the hard palate is reportable. Code to SCC, NOS (8070/3). Use text fields to record the details.
While WHO recognizes carcinoma cuniculatum to be a new variant of oral cancer, it has not proposed a new ICD-O code for this neoplasm.
","2021" "20210017","Update to current manual/Mets at diagnosis fields--Lymphoma: Are distant metastases possible for a lymphoma with a primary site of lymph nodes? The instructions in the SEER manual tell us to assign code 8 in each of the Mets at Dx fields for a lymphoma originating in lymph nodes.
","","This is a correction to the SEER manual. Lymphomas originating in lymph nodes (C77) could have distant metastases to any site except lymph nodes. The following corrections to the manual apply now and will appear in the next version of the manual.
Remove C770-C779 from the instruction for assigning code 8 on the following pages.
Page 135 Mets at Dx--Bone
Page 137 Mets at Dx--Brain
Page 139 Mets at Dx--Liver
Page 141 Mets at Dx--Lung
Page 145 Mets at Dx--Other
Example
Biopsy of axillary lymph node: Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma. Lymph nodes involved above and below the diaphragm, multiple nodules seen in lung, lesions in liver. Bone marrow biopsy positive for DLBLC. Per Hematopoietic manual, primary site would be C778 for multiple lymph node regions involved.
Mets at Dx--Bone-0
Mets at Dx--Brain-0
Mets at Dx--Liver-1
Mets at Dx--Lung-1
Mets at Dx--Distant Lymph Nodes-8
Mets at Dx--Other-1
","2021" "20210016","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology code for a kidney primary described as clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma""? Should we use H2 and code 8312/3 or H3 and code 8323/3?
","","Assign 8323/3, clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma using the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H1, as this is a single histology, a variant of renal cell carcinoma NOS.
","2021" "20210015","Solid Tumor Rules (2007/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Anus: Have the disease free interval criteria been met for the following case scenario. A patient was diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) III in 7/2018 that was treated with local tumor destruction, followed by Pap smears and biopsies that prove AIN I or AIN II through 2020, before being diagnosed with a reportable AIN II or AIN III in 2021. See Discussion.
","Since AIN I is not reportable and AIN II is not reportable until 2021, we are not sure if we can say the patient was disease free because there was no intervening reportable tumor (AIN III), or was never disease free because there was evidence of related disease (lower grade dysplasia).
","The 2021 AIN III is not a new primary. According to our GI pathology expert, findings of AIN I and/or AIN II following a diagnosis of AIN III indicates the patient was never NED and indicates persistent disease.
.
","2021" "20210014","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a 4/2019 diagnosis of left upper lobe (LUL) adenosquamous carcinoma (left lingula mass biopsy: adenosquamous carcinoma; LUL lung biopsy: pulmonary adenocarcinoma, stated to be a collision tumor and single primary per the Tumor Board), treated with radiation followed by an enlarging LUL mass in 7/2020 found to be squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
","The physician stated the prior LUL adenosquamous carcinoma was PD-L1 negative and the LUL squamous cell carcinoma is PD-L1 positive and is calling it a new primary.
5/22-7/3/19 6000x30 IMRT Photons LUL lung Chemo refused Not a Surg candidate
10/01/2019 CT Chest: IMP: In comparison to CT chest 03/06/2019 and PET/CT 03/21/2019, left lingular mass has mildly decreased in size. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions more anterior lesion appears slightly increased in size, the other slight decreased in size, with adjacent areas of atelectasis and scarring.
06/23/2020 CT Chest: MP: In comparison to CT chest 10/1/2019, left lingular mass has increased in size concerning for increasing tumor with adjacent thicker focal pleural thickening involving the chest wall, concerning for possible chest wall invasion. Left apical anterior and posterior lung lesions appears more solid in appearance, representing known adeno CA, given that the appearance has changed, is concerning for residual tumor.
07/06/2020 PET: Hypermetabolic lingular mass and peripheral nodularity has increased in size and FDG avidity on the prior PET/CT. Left apical nodular opacity is difficult to separate from fairly uniform mild left apical pleural hypermetabolism which may be treatment related and/or neoplastic.
","Abstract two primaries: 8560 and 8140 using rule M6. One of the original tumors with adenosquamous now shows only residual SCC following XRT. PD-L-1 is not used to determine multiple primaries. Assuming three tumors (the post-XRT SCC is not a new tumor but residual from one of the adenosquamous tumors) there are two primaries: 8560 and 8140 per M6. For collision tumors, each histology identified in the tumor is used to determine multiple primaries.
","2021" "20210012","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021/Multiple Primaries/)--Lung: How many primaries should be reported and what M rule applies when a diagnosis of presumed adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the left lung follows a known diagnosis of progressive multifocal malignant adenocarcinoma in the right lung? See Discussion.
","Patient was initially diagnosed with a right lower lobe (RLL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2014 followed by subsequent right upper lobe (RUL) lung adenocarcinoma in 2016 (single primary). Both were treated with radiation and the nodules were seen as stable on surveillance. There was subsequent growth in the RUL nodule in 2019 and RLL nodule in 2020 as well as a new right middle lobe (RML) nodule in 2020. All left sided nodules were noted to be stable and/or ground glass opacities.
There was no documented diagnosis of malignancy in the left lung until June 2020 when the physician noted that if there was a response in the left lung to systemic treatment, then this was probably multifocal AIS. However, only one tumor in the left lung responded to treatment.
While it seems somewhat unlikely that only a single AIS in the contralateral lung should be metastasis from the right lung malignancy, it is difficult to apply the multiple tumors rules to this case.
","Abstract a single primary using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rule M9.
The 2014 and 2016 R lung tumors were pathologically confirmed; it is not stated if they were resected. Follow up after XRT noted stable disease but no indication of NED. Subsequent right lung tumor is also the same primary. The issue is the assumed left lung adenocarcinoma in situ. It is not clear how long the left lung nodules were present, but they appeared to be stable as well and only diagnosed as a malignancy based on treatment response. At this time M9 applies and the left lung AIS is not a separate primary. We have discussed at length with lung pathology experts the issue of determining multiple primaries. Identifying and diagnosing lung tumors has become easier with new technology and the result is patients are being diagnosed with multiple lung tumors. Some lung experts feel we are under-reporting lung primaries but all noted the many issues with creating rules for consistency.
","2021" "20210011","Primary site: Is C720 the correct primary site for a diagnosis of a paraspinal neuroblastoma on autopsy in a nine month old with Noonan syndrome? See Discussion.
","Autopsy/Pathology Report (2020) excerpts
External Examination
Nervous System: There is an 8.5 cm mass located in the right thoracic paraspinal area.
Final Anatomic Diagnosis
Clinical History: Paraspinal mass suspicious for neuroblastic tumor (detected by imaging studies)
Nervous System: Right thoracic paraspinal neuroblastoma, poorly differentiated
","Assign primary site code C473 for this case based on the information provided (peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax).
From our expert pathologist consultant: The origin of neuroblastomas is generally in the adrenal medulla or one of the sympathetic ganglia on either side of the vertebral column (although they have been reported in many other locations given the migration of the neural crest cells embryologically).
","2021" "20210010","Reportability--Head & Neck: Is chondrosarcoma, grade 1 reportable for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later? See Discussion.
","Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.
The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?
How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?
","Chrondrosarcoma, grade 1 (9222/1) is not reportable according to the Reportability section in the 2021 SEER Manual. The histology (9222/1) is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as a synonym for atypical cartilaginous tumor (preferred term).
In general, the tables do not include non-reportable terms and codes. Registrars should refer to their standard setter (to whom they submit data) for reportable neoplasms. Currently, /0 and /1 neoplasms are reportable for central nervous system sites only. ICD-O-3.2 includes all neoplasms but that does not mean they are reportable. If a facility collects non-malignant neoplasms, use the corresponding ICD-O code in 3.2.
","2021" "20210009","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H4 be used to code the histology to regressing melanoma? See Discussion.
","Rule H4 states: Code 8723/3 (malignant melanoma, regressing) when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma. However, if the diagnosis was strictly regressing melanoma or malignant melanoma, regressing, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because regressing melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states: Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H4. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H4 be added to clarify when to use this rule?
","Coding regressing melanoma has been an issue as registrars may not realize it is a reportable histology. Hence, H4 was written to reinforce correct histology. A note will be added to H1 instructing registrars to continue thru rules when the diagnosis is regressing melanoma.
","2021" "20210008","Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Melanoma: In what situation will Rule H6 be used to code the histology to lentigo maligna melanoma? See Discussion.
","Rule H6 states: Code 8742/3 (Lentigo maligna melanoma) when the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma with no other histologic types. However, if the diagnosis was strictly lentigo maligna or lentigo maligna melanoma, the first rule that applies is Rule H1 because lentigo maligna melanoma is a single, specific histologic type and Rule H1 states, Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. Following the current rules, one would never arrive at Rule H6. Should the H Rules be reordered? Or should an example of when one would use Rule H6 be added to clarify when to use this rule?
","Solid Tumor rule H6 is the same as MP/H rule H8. We found registrars have problems understanding reportable terminology and the corresponding ICD-O-3 histology code for lentigo maligna melanoma. It is included in H6 to capture cases where the registrar may not stop at H1. We will add another note to H1 instructing users to continue through the rules if the diagnosis is lentigo maligna melanoma.
","2021" "20210007","First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should we be coding Reason For No Surgery of Primary Site for cases where surgery was planned but ultimately cancelled due to progression? See Discussion.
","There is a discrepancy in the SEER and STORE manual definition of code 2 for Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site. STORE includes progression of tumor prior to planned surgery as part of the definition for code 2, but the SEER Manual does not. The progression statement is included in the SEER Manual (2018 and 2021) for Reason for No Radiation, but not for Reason for No Surgery.
","Assign code 2 for cases where surgery was planned but ultimately cancelled due to progression in the data item Reason For No Surgery of Primary Site. Code 2 description contains examples and is not exhaustive of reasons for no surgery.
We will add the example for consistency in the next version of the SEER manual.
","2021" "20210006","Behavior/Summary Stage 2018--Colon: What is the correct behavior and Summary Stage for a case of intramucosal adenocarcinoma arising in tubular adenoma? AJCC states this is Tis, though SEER Summary Stagie states this is Localized (code 1). The histology is 8140/2 (adenocarcinoma in situ), but the SEER Summary Stage is Locallized.
","","Intramucosal carcinoma of the colon is assigned behavior code of /3. Intramucosal is not the same as in situ in terms of behavior. Behavior and staging are separate concepts, although there is some overlap. Use the instructions for coding behavior to code this field. Do not use stage to determine behavior in this case.
For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion; however, for purposes of AJCC staging, assign Tis for the stage.
","2021" "20210005","Reportability/Histology--Ovary: Is a 2020 ovary case reportable with the positive malignant findings in adnexal cystic fluid and peritoneal washing? See Discussion.
","11/24/20 Adnexal mass, cyst fluid: Positive for malignant cells. Clusters of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells. Groups of inhibin-negative, CK7-positive epithelial cells consistent with serous borderline tumor cells. Peritoneal washing: Positive for malignant cells. Small groups of inhibin-positive, CK7-negative cells, consistent with adult granulosa cell tumor cells.
A. Left ovarian mass: Adult granulosa cell tumor (AGCT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1c3 pNX - Serous borderline tumor (SBT) of ovary (see note). pTNM Stage: pT1a pNX. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.
B. Right ovary: - Serous cystadenofibroma of ovary. Fallopian tube; unremarkable.
C. Left pelvic wall nodule: Fibro-calcified nodule, consistent with necrotic appendix epiploica.
D. Uterus (hysterectomy): Uterine leiomyomas. Endosalpingiosis of uterine serosa and paracervical tissue. Atrophic endometrium.
Note: The left ovarian mass is involved by a combined adult granulosa cell tumor and a serous borderline tumor. The AGCT mainly involves the thick-walled cystic area while the SBT the thin-walled cyst/s. The 2 neoplastic elements do, however, demonstrate areas of intimate and close intermingling. From the current literature, it appears that, based on FOXL2 mutation, the AGCT component of combined AGCT and ovarian epithelial tumors is either a true neoplastic processes or an AGCT- like proliferation morphologically indistinguishable from AGCT. To further evaluate the nature of the AGCT component, a FOXL2 analysis is in progress and an addendum will follow.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2021, report adult granulosa cell tumor of ovary only when stated to be malignant or when metastases are indicated, as by the positive peritoneal washings for this 2020 case. Beginning in 2021, report all cases of adult granulosa cell tumor of ovary based on ICD-O-3.2.
","2021" "20210004","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: What is the histology for a 2020 pathology report final diagnosis showing invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated with signet ring cell features and signet-ring cell carcinoma in the synoptic report? See Discussion.
","Since the synoptic report and final diagnosis are equal in priority, and the Solid Tumor Rules tell us to code the more specific histology, would this be coded to signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, 8490/3, even though the pathologist used features in the final diagnosis? There is no histology adenocarcinoma with signet ring cell features on the CAP Protocol, so the pathologist may check off the next closest histology "" signet ring cell carcinoma "" which would not be truly representative of the actual histology. Final Diagnosis: Proximal colon, segmental resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, with signet ring cell features. Synoptic Report A: Colon and Rectum - Resection Specimen Procedure: Right hemicolectomy, Tumor Site: Right (ascending) colon, Histologic Type: Signet-ring cell carcinoma, Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated.
","Code histology to 8490/3 per H6.
The December 2020 Solid Tumor Update includes addition of the following instructions to the ""Priority Order for Using Documentation to Code Histology"" section.
Which document to use when there is conflicting information between the final diagnosis, synoptic report, or CAP protocol: When there are discrepancies between the final diagnosis and synoptic report, use the document that provides the more specific histology. This will likely be found in the synoptic report. The CAP Protocol should be used only when a final diagnosis or synoptic report are not available. Definitions for CAP Protocol, final diagnosis, and synoptic report can be found in the Definitions section.
","2021" "20210003","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Head & Neck: The instructions for Table 9 of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules instruct registrars to code the primary site to C479 (Autonomic nervous system) for paragangliomas that arise in the head and neck region, but the ICD-O-3.2 provides a site-associated code for most of these tumors (C754, Carotid body and C755, Paraganglion). Which primary site is correct? See Discussion.
","While we recognize that paragangliomas originate in the parasympathetic or sympathetic nervous system, these are endocrine tumors and endocrine glands/structures are not included in ICD-O site code C479 (Autonomic nervous system). Endocrine tumors of the paraganglia have their own site codes (C75_) per the ICD-O. Additionally, the ICD-O-3.2 provides specific sites for most of the paragangliomas included in Table 9. Per the ICD-O-3.2, carotid body paraganglioma is C754, and middle ear paraganglioma, glomus jugulare tumor, jugulotympanic paraganglioma, and paraganglioma (NOS) are C755.
Why are paragangliomas not coded to the paraganglia sites (C75_) provided in the ICD-O? Should these sites be added to the Head & Neck schema for the specific paragangliomas arising in the head and neck? Obtaining consistency in coding primary site for these tumors will be difficult if registrars use the ICD-O provided site codes instead of the primary site statement preceding Table 9. Additionally, as most registrars may use the ICD-O provided site code, the Head and Neck schema in the Solid Tumor Rules would not apply, the Other Sites schema would apply to sites C754 and C755.
","Always code primary site to the site of origin. Look for information about where the neoplasm originated. Primary site should always be coded to reflect the site of origin according to the medical opinion on the case. Always code the primary site based on where the tumor arose / site of origin. Site of origin may be indicated by terms such as ""tumor arose from,"" ""tumor originated in,"" or similar statements.
Refer to ICD-O-3.2 and ICD-O-3 for topographty codes that are associated with specific histologies whenthe medical documentation does not specify the primary site.
","2021" "20210002","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (t-MDS) (9920/3) in 2015 followed by a 2020 diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS, NOS) (9989/3)? See Discussion.
","Patient has a history of B-cell lymphoma with multimodality treatment in 2002. Lab work in 2015 showed multilineage dysplasia leading to a diagnosis of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome. Patient presents in 2020 for a bone marrow biopsy now showing low-grade MDS. The MDS appears to have the same multilineage dysplasia previously identified.
MDS, NOS is not listed in the Heme DB as a possible transformation of t-MDS, nor is it listed as a Same Primary for t-MDS. Likewise, t-MDS is not listed as a more specific myelodysplastic syndrome, a transformation of MDS NOS, or a Same Primary as MDS, NOS.
The first M rule that applies to this case is M15, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator indicates that the MDS, NOS should be a new primary.
","Abstract separate primaries using Rule M15 of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (Heme) Manual. The Heme Database states: Excluded from this category are progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and evolution of primary MDS or primary MDS/MPN to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); in each of these latter cases evolution to AML is part of the natural history of the primary disease and it may be impossible to distinguish natural progression from therapy-related changes. There is no indication of transformation.
","2021" "20210001","SEER*RSA/Required data items--Melanoma: The site-specific data item, Ulceration, states it is required by ""All"" in SEER*RSA but in the NAACCR Data Dictionary table it states is it required by SEER, Commission on Cancer (CoC), and Canadian Cancer Registry (CCCR), not the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). Does the definition of ""All"" in SEER*RSA not include NPCR? Also, please explain the difference between Required by: ""All"" and ""Required by CCCR/Canada, COC, NPCR, SEER"" (all listed out).
","","Use the NAACCR Data Dictionary Required Status Table or refer to standard setter requirements. Do not use SEER*RSA to determine which data items are required to be collected or transmitted. Though ""All"" in SEER*RSA generally refers to the standard setters including CoC, NPCR, CCCR, and SEER, some items in SEER*RSA need updating; this is planned for 2022.
","2021" "20200088","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an inconsistency between the histologies listed as deleted in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and the obsolete histologies in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB)? See Discussion.
","While we recognize the Heme DB has been the correct source for histology coding for heme and lymphoid neoplasms dating back to 2010, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines appear to provide incorrect coding instructions. Histologies 9670/3, 9728/3, 9729/3 and 9836/3 are listed in Table 3 - Deleted ICD-O codes in ICD-O-3.2.
While we recognize these histologies have been included in this Table because they have now been deleted, it is unclear whether the Comments regarding their use listed in the 4th column of the Table is correct. For each of these histologies, the comment states the histology listed in the 1st column (ICD-O-3/3.1) should be used prior to 2021. For example, for histology 9670/3, the comment states: Cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2021 use code 9670/3. Cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward use code 9823/3. However, each of these histology codes have been obsolete for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. If registrars were following the Heme DB and Heme Manual instructions (the appropriate coding source for these neoplasms), these histologies would not have been used in a decade.
Should the Comments column in Table 3 be updated? Or should a Note follow the Table indicating registrars should not use these histology codes for cases diagnosed after 1/1/2010, and these histology codes have been deleted for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021? It seems misleading to indicate any of these are valid histology codes for a 2010-2020 diagnosis when the Heme DB confirms these histology codes only apply to cases diagnosed prior to 2010.
","Follow the Heme DB to determine which codes are obsolete as of 2010. These histologies were made obsolete based on the 2010 WHO Hematopoietic book and confirmation with physicians. The official changes from ICD-O-3 were not implemented until ICD-O-3.2 Also, edits will not allow these histologies to be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.
The ICD-O tables were based on documentation from IARC ICD-O committee and may differ from practices in North America.
","2020" "20200087","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology code for a micropapillary thyroid carcinoma for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later? See Discussion.
","The 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update includes papillary microcarcinoma (8341/3) as the preferred term for thyroid primaries (C739). However, there are multiple SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8341/3 for diagnoses of micropapillary carcinoma of the thyroid (including SINQ 20071076, 20081127, 20110027, 20150023, and 20180008).
SINQ 20150023 specifically indicates: Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1 cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma and codes histology to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct.
Does this clarification apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later? If WHO feels the term micropapillary still does not refer to a specific histologic type for the thyroid, why is 8341/3 listed as a preferred term for this morphology/site combination? For cases 2021 and later, should a diagnosis of Incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (3 mm) in left lower pole, be coded as 8341/3 per the ICD-O-3.2, or as 8260/3 per clarification in multiple SINQ entries?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","Continue to code micropapillary thyroid carcinoma to 8260/3 until instructed otherwise. This coding instruction is based on input from expert endocrine pathologists. This issue will be revisted based on the 4th Ed WHO Endocrine Tumors and updated if needed.
","2020" "20200086","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Paraganglioma, NOS is reportable and malignant for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later. Paraganglioma, NOS is listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as 8680/3 without synonyms or related terms. Table 4 (ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines) lists 8693/3 Paraganglioma as a new preferred term. Is this correct? See Discussion.
","Table 4 (Changes in reportable terminology), 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Update, does confirm that the term malignant no longer needs to be used to describe a paraganglioma, but Table 4 includes the histology for extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) as the new preferred term for paraganglioma. Paraganglioma, NOS is histology code 8680/3. Which code is correct?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The correct code for extra-adrenal paraganglioma is 8693/3. The preferred term for 8380/3 is Paraganglioma, NOS. Table 4 of the 2021 ICD-O update was based on information from WHO.
Table 9 in the Head and Neck ST rules is being revised and formatted differently for ease of coding based on diagnosis year (prior to 2021 and 2021 forward). Not ALL paragangliomas will be included in Table 9. If a term and code are not provided in the rules, refer to ICD-O and updates.
","2020" "20200085","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head and Neck: What is the histology of paraganglioma, NOS arising outside of the adrenal gland (for example, in the bladder) for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later? See Discussion.
","Should histology be coded as paraganglioma, NOS (8680/3) or as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS (8693/3) for a diagnosis of paraganglioma in the bladder? Does the pathologist have to specifically diagnose the tumor as extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS to use histology code 8693/3? Or, does any diagnosis of paraganglioma (NOS) arising outside of the adrenal gland, carotid body, middle ear, or aortic body (the specified sites for other types of paragangliomas) qualify as an extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS?
The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines (Tables 6 and 7) provide an associated site of C755 for histology 8680/3 (paraganglioma, NOS), but no associated site code is provided for histology 8693/3 (extra-adrenal paraganglioma, NOS). If the preferred site for paraganglioma, NOS is the paraganglia, would a paraganglioma in the bladder be an extra-adrenal paraganglioma?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","Code the histology stated by the pathologist: paraganglioma, NOS 8680/3.
","2020" "20200084","Primary Site/Histology--Sarcoma: Do the clarifications in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table regarding undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma (8830/3) apply to cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later with the implementation of ICD-O-3.2? See Discussion.
","In the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table, undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma and undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone (C40_) were both listed as a New Term for histology 8830/3. There was no site restriction for a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma. Therefore, it appears the diagnosis could easily be applied to a soft tissue tumor. This histology is used by pathologists in our region for soft tissue tumors as well as bone tumors. However, in the ICD-O-3.2 Table an entry (or synonym) was not provided for a tumor outside the bone.
The ICD-O-3.2 Table only lists undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone for site codes C40_ and C41_ as a synonym for histology 8830/3. This also is not listed in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines. As a result, it is unclear whether a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue can be coded to 8830/3 and/or can be a synonym for the preferred term (8830/3, Malignant fibrous histiocytoma). Can a diagnosis of undifferentiated high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma of the soft tissue be coded to 8830/3, C49_ as it was per the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","8802/3 applies to soft tissue tumors and 8830/3 applies to tumors arising in bone. The 2018 ICD-O update lists undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma as code 8802/3 and 8830/3 applies to undifferentiated high grade pleomorphic sarcoma of bone and is specific to C40 _. This is still valid in ICD-O-3.2. The 2018 update also noted undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, NOS was a new term for 8830 based on WHO documentation available at that time. However that is incorrect and ICD-O-3.2 provides the correct codes.
","2020" "20200083","Reportability/Histology--Kidney: Is hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later? If so, how is the histology coded? See Discussion.
","The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor as a related term for histology code 8317 (Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type). However, this related term is not discussed in the implementation guidelines as being a new term/reportable tumor. The Solid Tumor Rules do not indicate a hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is reportable; however, if a registrar only looked at the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, it may seem as though this histology should be collected.
The term hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor was not included in the Solid Tumor Rules as a subtype/variant of RCC, or as an equivalent term for chromophobe RCC. There is a SINQ (20180047) that states not to report renal hybrid oncocytic tumor, despite the fact these tumors exhibit mixed features of both oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. For cases diagnosed 2021 and later, should the clarification in the SINQ apply? Or should the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table be used which indicates this is a reportable diagnosis? If the standard setters decided not to implement use of hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor for 2021, can clarification be added to the Solid Tumor Rules or Implementation Guidelines?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","Hybrid oncocytic chromophobe tumor is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8317/3 which indicates it is reportable if diagnosed in 2021 or later. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 and later, use ICD-O-3.2 for reportability. See page 16 of the NAACCR 2021 Implementation Guidelines.
Between publication of ICD-O-3.2 and updates made to solid tumor histology tables, additional terms were added based on review by the IARC ICD-O committee. These changes were not made available in time to correct the tables. All related terms or synonyms may not be included in the histology tables and ICD-O-3.2 should be used in tandem with the solid tumor rules.
","2020" "20200082","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Corpus Uteri: How is histology coded for cases of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian (MMMT) tumor diagnosed 2021 and later? See Discussion.
","The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table includes Mullerian mixed tumor as the preferred term for histology code 8950 (previously malignant mixed Mullerian tumor/MMMT). This table also includes carcinosarcoma, NOS as the preferred term for histology code 8980. Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table nor the Implementation Guidelines address the long-standing issue of coding histology for diagnoses of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.
These endometrial primaries are frequently diagnosed as both carcinosarcoma and MMMT. The questions regarding histology coding for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma/MMMT of the endometrium date back to before the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, with at least three SINQ entries instructing registrars not to use code 8950/3 (MMMT) for diagnoses of MMMT. SINQ has instructed registrars that MMMT is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and these tumors should be coded to 8980 (carcinosarcoma), not to 8950 (MMMT). The most recent SINQ is partly inconsistent with the others, indicating 8950 can be used if the tumor is only described as MMMT. The other SINQ entries state carcinosarcoma should be used as it is the preferred term for MMMT. (See SINQ 20061008, 20100009, 20180071.)
The most recent SINQ (20180071) specifically indicates: According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition, MMMT (8950/3) is now a synonym for carcinosarcoma (8980/3) even though it has a separate ICD-O code. The ICD-O code for MMMT is no longer in the WHO book. However, MMMT is in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table and is not stated to be obsolete or a synonym. Which is correct, the clarification in the SINQ or the 2021 ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table?
For a 2021 diagnosis of carcinosarcoma/malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, how should registrars code the histology? Follow the previous SINQ entries and Rule H17 to code the histology to 8980 when the diagnosis includes both carcinosarcoma and MMMT? Do these previous SINQ entries still apply to cases diagnosed 2021 and later?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","According to both the 4th and 5th Ed WHO GYN Tumors, carcinosarcoma (8980) is the preferred term and pathologists are encouraged to no longer use Mixed Mullerian Tumor (8950) in their diagnoses. WHO 4th Ed GYN now lists MMMT as synonym for carcinosarcoma. 8950/3 is no longer included in WHO 4th Ed.
Until the the Other Sites Rules can be updated with histology tables to assist in coding, use the following to determine histology.
Carcinosarcoma (8980/3) and MMMT (8950/3)
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Pancreas: How is the histology coded, and what H Rule applies, for a 2021 diagnosis when the pathological diagnosis is neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 or NET G2, but clinically, the tumor is stated to be insulinoma? See Discussion.
","Insulinoma, NOS is reportable for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the diagnosis of insulinoma is most frequently made with clinical correlation of the patient's clinical syndrome and serum hormone levels. Despite a pathological diagnosis of NET, this will clinically be stated as insulinoma based on the functional type of tumor. At the largest facility in our area, all pathology reports with a diagnosis of insulinoma over the last year only provide a pathological Final Diagnosis of NET (either G1 or G2), but elsewhere specify, Functional Type: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, functional. Correlation with Clinical Syndrome and Elevated Serum Levels of Hormone Product: Insulin-producing (Insulinoma).
For 2021 and later, it seems this should be accessioned as insulinoma (8151/3), but one cannot arrive at that histology using the current Other Sites (MP/H) H Rules. Following the existing rules, one would code the histology to NET, G1 or NET, G2 (8240 or 8249) per Rule H6. There are technically two specific histologies to consider: NET (either 8240 or 8249) and insulinoma, NOS (8151). Following the H Rules, Rule H6 instructs one to code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8240 or 8249).
Coding this histology to NET (8240 or 8249) does not seem to reflect the most accurate classification of this tumor, but applying the current rules, this is the only histology that can be coded. There is no current guideline in the Other Sites schema or the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines instructing us to ignore the pathological diagnosis of a NET for these tumors (even though insulinomas are NETs). The only SINQ that currently exists (SINQ 20150019) states the histology can be coded as either a NET or an insulinoma in these cases. How are registrars to consistently code histology for these tumors without a rule clarification?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","Code the tissue/pathology histology over the clinical diagnosis. Because of implementation timelines, a comprehensive revision to Other Sites rules will not be available 2022. A limited revision is planned and histology tables will be added for select sites. The General Instructions will also be revised for Other Sites.
","2020" "20200080","Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: Is a diagnosis of insulin-producing (insulinoma) epithelioid neoplasm reportable if made 2021 and later? If so, is the histology coded as 8151/3 per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table? See Discussion.
","The ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines and ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table indicate that insulinoma, NOS has changed behavior from /0 to /3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. However, the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines do not indicate whether this change applies to tumors described as above. Insulinomas are generally neuroendocrine tumors/neoplasms, so it seems any neuroendocrine tumor described as an insulinoma should be collected as 8151/3, but does that apply to an epithelioid tumor/neoplasm also described as insulinoma?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","If the diagnosis includes insulinoma, it is reportable and coded 8151/3. Insulin-producing epithelioid neoplasm alone, without mention of insulinoma, is not reportable.
","2020" "20200079","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Should the updated note for optic nerve glioma be included in both the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves, Note 6, and the Non-Malignant CNS Tumors, Note 5? See Discussion.
","Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?
This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The 2022 Solid Tumor Update will include a new note in the Terms & Definitions, Introduction section that will state: See the Non-malignant CNS rules when the primary site is optic nerve and the diagnosis is either optic glioma or pilocytic astrocytoma. The behavior is non-malignant and coded 9421/1.
","2020" "20200078","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the new malignant term pituitary blastoma be added to Table 3 of the 2018 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.
","Pituitary blastoma was not added to Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) of the 2018 Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules as part of the December 2020 update. This is a new malignant CNS histology for 2021 and later. Not including this histology in Table 3 results in the registrars being required to check another source to correctly code this histology. If this histology cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that diagnosis year clarification be included in the STR?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The Solid Tumor Malignant CNS tables do not list pituitary specific histologies at this time. Registrars will need to refer to ICD-O and/or updates until the decision to add malignant pituitary neoplasms is made. Pituitary blastoma is a rare tumor which occurs in children.
","2020" "20200077","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Kidney: What is the histology code for succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD)? See Discussion.
","Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules (STR) lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma as histology code 8312, but in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table it is listed as histology code 8311.
No changes were made in the Kidney STR. As a result, the histology change described in the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table conflicts with Table 1. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is listed in Table 1 as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312). However, the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists this as a related term for histology code 8311/3. This related term was not discussed in the Implementation Guidelines, and no change was noted in the STR.
While it seems we should continue to follow the STR, without clarification as to why this histology change was not implemented in STR, achieving consistency will be problematic if registrars jump straight to the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table to code histology for cases diagnosed 2021 and later. If this code cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that clarification be included in the STR?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","When creating table 1, our GU SME's stated Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDHD) is a rare neoplasm and is coded to RCC, NOS until such time a new code is proposed in the 5th Ed BB. ICD-O-3.2 added this term to 8311 as a related term BUT there is no documentation that these neoplasms are different and should be on separate lines in table 1 making them separate primaries. Its likely IARC made the decision to group these rare genetic histologies into one code. SEER is waiting for confirmation from GU experts. If it's valid, the RCC row will be updated in columns 2 and 3 with applicable dates each histology is valid.
","2020" "20200076","Reportability/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Kidney: Should clarification (Notes) be added to Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules regarding the use of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (8312) as these histologies conflict with the ICD-O-3.2? See Discussion.
","First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021).
Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology?
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, use ICD-O-3.2 to determine reportability. Use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries to report and the histology to code for tumors that are reportable. Do not use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine reportability.
ICD-O-3.2 was implemented by the North American standard setters as of 1/1/2021 and it is the basis for reportability for cases diagnosed as of 1/1/21. See 1.a on page 6 in the 2021 SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/SPCSM_2021_MainDoc.pdf
WHO 4th edition Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed ICD-O code 8323/1 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. This has not been approved for implementation by the standard setters. Continue assigning 8323/3 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma.
Sarcomatoid RCC is listed as a synonym for RCC 8312/3. This is correct per WHO and our SME. Do NOT code sarcomatoid RCC to 8318/3.
","2020" "20200074","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: What specific table(s) in the 2021 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules if any, apply to tumors of the lip? See Discussion.
","Lip has not been added to any of the site-specific histology tables, nor has any other instruction been provided for coding tumors in this site.
Coding histology for lip primaries is difficult because registrars do not know where to look first. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate one should use the tables first, but then do not inform registrars what table to use for a lip primary (i.e., a specific table, any table, no table).
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The tables are based on WHO H&N chapters which do not include lip. There are inherent issues in determining reportability for lip primaries based on site and histology. The decision was made prior to release of the 2018 rules to exclude a histology table for lip. We are consulting both our dermatology and H&N pathology experts to explore adding a lip site-specific table to the rules.
","2020" "20200073","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Should the mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) row in Table 1 include the still often used (yet older) terms of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid, adenocarcinoid, etc. for clarity? See Discussion.
","The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The next update to the Solid Tumor rules will include adding the following four terms to Colon Table 1 as synonyms for Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma 8244
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when there are multiple synchronous/non-contiguous tumors when one tumor is metaplastic carcinoma (with carcinoma No Special Type (NST) or lobular carcinoma) and another tumor is strictly carcinoma, NST? See Discussion.
","Is an M rule needed to address multiple tumors and Note 2 in Table 3? Does Note 2 in Table 3 apply when multiple tumors exist and one tumor contains only ductal carcinoma?
The M Rules currently confirm that a metaplastic carcinoma (whether it is involved with ductal or lobular) and a separate ductal carcinoma are separate primaries because these histologies are on different rows in Table 3 (separate primaries per M14). There is no specific rule regarding metaplastic carcinomas in the Multiple Tumors (M Rules) module, so presumably, the presence of a separate ductal carcinoma is not lumped into Note 2 in Table 3 for metaplastic carcinoma.
However, the note is confusing when there are multiple tumors involved because it appears to the registrars there are two options for coding the histology. To some registrars, the rules indicate it does not matter if the tumor is predominantly ductal carcinoma as long as some percentage of metaplastic carcinoma is present, code histology to metaplastic carcinoma. For other registrars, the presence of solely a ductal carcinoma in a second tumor is a separate primary from the separate metaplastic carcinoma.
The M rules and Note 2 need to clarify this issue to promote consistency.
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The term ""mixed"" implies a single tumor comprised of metaplastic carcinoma or variants of metaplastic and duct or lobular. The metaplastic histology is coded regardless of whether it comprises the majority (greater than 50% of the tumor). M13 is the only rule specific to metaplastic and is in the single tumor module. This implies a single tumor with both histologies. When there are multiple tumors, one with metaplastic or a subtype/variant of metaplastic and another with a histology listed on a different row, continue to the Multiple Tumors module. M13 applies and there are two primaries. We will add ""single tumor"" to the note in Table 2 in the next update.
","2020" "20200071","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: Rule H13 of the 2021 Breast Solid Tumor Rules (a new H Rule added in the December 2020 revision) indicates metaplastic carcinoma is coded when both metaplastic carcinoma and carcinoma No Special Type (NST) are present. Should Rule H13 also address lobular carcinoma so the histology for a single tumor with metaplastic carcinoma and lobular carcinoma is correctly coded to metaplastic carcinoma (8575)? See Discussion.
","Rule H13 states to code the histology to metaplastic carcinoma when there is metaplastic carcinoma (or a subtype/variant) and invasive carcinoma NST. This rule makes no mention of lobular carcinoma. However, in Table 3, Note 2 for metaplastic carcinoma (8575) states metaplastic carcinoma, NOS and subtypes are almost always mixed with invasive mammary carcinoma, NST and at times lobular carcinoma. These tumors should be coded to metaplastic regardless of percent invasive mammary carcinoma or lobular carcinoma present.
While Table 2 (the mixed histology code table) does include an entry for metaplastic carcinoma AND carcinoma NST OR lobular carcinoma, it is unclear why lobular carcinoma has not been added to Rule H13 as well.
If a single tumor has metaplastic plus lobular carcinoma, Rule H13 does not apply and one has to continue through the rules. Unfortunately, the next rule registrars would be tempted to use is Rule H18: Code the histology that comprises greater than 50% of tumor when two histologies are on different rows in Table 3. This Rule does not state it does NOT apply to metaplastic carcinoma (only mucinous). So, if for some reason the lobular was greater than 50%, the incorrect histology would be coded (unless the registrar happened to remember Note 2 in the metaplastic carcinoma entry in Table 3).
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","Lobular carcinoma was unintentionally excluded from M13. It will be added in the 2022 update. It is important registrars learn to use the tables and read the notes.
","2020" "20200070","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: The December 2020 revision to 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, using behavior rather than timing to determine the number of primaries, has caused synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors reported as invasive carcinoma, NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) to be reported as separate primaries per Rule M14. Should an invasive carcinoma NST and a synchronous, separate lobular carcinoma in situ be separate primaries per M14? See Discussion.
","Recognizing the addition of the behavior requirement into this rule is an attempt to stop non-synchronous ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinomas from being accessioned as a single primary (SINQ 20200022), the issue with using behavior rather than timing is that now, synchronous separate/non-contiguous tumors that are invasive carcinoma NST (8500/3) and lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) (or vice versa) are separate primaries per M14.
Lobular and carcinoma, NST are separate rows in Table 3, so we cannot stop at M10 and code the mixed histology because there are two separate histologies with different behaviors. There is no rule that states we can just ignore the in situ tumors for the purpose of applying the M Rules. (We are instructed to ignore the in situ when coding histology only in certain circumstances.) The problem with Rule M10 appears to be related to timing.
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","The original issue with M10 was with registrars being instructed that multiple in situ and invasive tumors were a single primary and then coding 8522/3 when one tumor was in situ and one was invasive. This incorrectly identified both components as being malignant (/3). Our effort to correct this misconception apparently did not work. M10 has been revised to state that yes, an in situ lobular or duct plus an invasive lobular or duct is a single primary with a new note that states: When a mixture of behaviors is present in carcinoma, NST, and lobular carcinoma, follow the H rules to determine the correct histology code. They will stop at H8 which instructs them to code the invasive histology. 8522/3 should only be used when both components are invasive.
","2020" "20200069","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for an in situ encapsulated papillary carcinoma with an invasive carcinoma, NST? See Discussion.
","In Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS/ NST, and Subtypes/Variants), the entry for papillary carcinoma, NOS includes a change in column 3 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules that conflicts with the H Rules. It is not accounted for in the change log. No explanation is offered as to why this change was made. This is a major change because encapsulated papillary carcinoma is frequently associated with carcinoma NST, and we have not been collecting these as such.
Encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504) in column 3 now includes an indented entry, with invasive carcinoma, NST/invasive duct carcinoma 8504/3. However, most encapsulated papillary carcinomas are in situ or there is no definitive statement of invasive encapsulated papillary carcinoma, so when in situ and invasive tumors are present, we are instructed to code the invasive histology (which would be the invasive carcinoma (NST), 8500/3). How are registrars to arrive at the correct histology without a new H rule or a clarification regarding this update being documented in the change log?
Does the same change/addition apply to solid papillary carcinoma? These are often also associated with carcinoma, NST. Again, without an explanation regarding the change mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the change was made.
This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.
","In situ encapsulated papillary arising in or with invasive carcinoma, NST (a single tumor) is a single invasive histology. Use rule H14 and code the histology per Table 3.
A note as been added to the 2023 breast rule H8 instructing when there is a single tumor with histology of in situ encapsulated papillary with invasive carcinoma or solid papillary carcinoma with invasove, continue through the rules. See H14 and code the appropriate histology per Table 3.
Histologic types are becoming more complex and often have both in situ and invasive components but have a single code to identify them.
","2020" "20200068","Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: Are colon primaries coded as local or regional (direct extension) on Summary Stage based on invasion into the pericolorectal tissues? For example, is a case with an ascending colon tumor that extends into the pericolorectal tissues, pT3, local or regional by direct extension?
","","Code as Localized using the SEER Summary Stage Manual, Colon and Rectum, Note 6.
Localized is for subsites that are not peritonealized, including the posterior side of the ascending colon, or when the pathologist does not further describe the ""pericolic/perirectal tissues"" as either ""non-peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues"" vs ""peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues"" fat and the gross description does not describe the tumor relation to the serosa/peritoneal surface, and it cannot be determined whether the tumor arises in a peritonealized portion of the colon.
Refer to the coding instructions in both EOD and Summary Stage for a list of sites that are nonperitonealized or peritonealized.
.
","2020" "20200067","Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Colon: What is the Summary Stage for adenocarcinoma of cecum where the tumor extends into the proximal portion of attached vermiform appendix? See Discussion.
","2020 Diagnosis: Patient had a right hemicolectomy showing adenocarcinoma of cecum, tumor extends into proximal portion of attached vermiform appendix. Tumor invades through muscularis propria into pericolorectal tissues (NOS). Regional lymph nodes: 06/39. Primary Tumor EOD: Where does the appendix involvement come into coding or will this be based on the pericolorectal tissue (NOS) invasion? What is my Summary Stage? I know it is at least 3 due to regional ln involvement, but the appendix involvement is making me question 3 vs 4.
","Assign code 4, Regional by BOTH direct extension AND regional lymph node(s) involved. In this case, the Regional component for Summary Stage 2018 is based on Note 6, under Colon and Rectum where Regional is defined as:
-Mesentery
-Peritonealized pericolic/perirectal tissues invaded [Ascending Colon/Descending Colon/Hepatic Flexure/Splenic Flexure/Upper third of rectum: anterior and lateral surfaces; Cecum; Sigmoid Colon; Transverse Colon; Rectosigmoid; Rectum: middle third anterior surface]
-Pericolic/Perirectal fat
","2020" "20200066","Reportability--Skin: Effective 2021, a cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is a related term for smooth muscle tumor, NOS (8897/1) in ICD-O-3.2. Currently, we have been capturing these as a C44_ (leiomyosarcoma, 8890/3) but the 2019 SEER inquiry states that atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. This is not documented on the 2018 ICD-O-3 updates. Should this 2019 case be 8897/1 or 8890/3?
","","Cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is reportable for 2019. Code histology to leiomyosarcoma 8890/3.
As of cases diagnosed 1/1/2021, it is no longer reportable based on assignment to 8897/1 in ICD-O-3.2.
","2020" "20200065","Tumor Size/Corpus uteri--Endometrium: Is clinical tumor size coded to the endometrial stripe measurement or thickening in the endometrium. See Discussion.
","Example: Pelvic ultrasound-19 mm thickened endometrium; bilateral ovaries unremarkable. Case was coded to 19 mm for clinical tumor size. I have always been taught NOT to use ""endometrial stripe"" or ""thickening"" measurements for clinical size. Can you confirm. Also, is this noted on any of the SEER resources such as SEER training or in the SEER tumor size guidelines? I wanted to point them out to a reference if it is available.
","We consulted with an expert GYN pathologist. He confirmed our thinking that endometrial stripe or thickening does not represent clinical tumor size. We will add this to a future edition of the SEER manual for reference.
","2020" "20200064","Primary site--Heme &Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of two extraosseous plasmacytomas, with positive pathology of right orbit and left lung. The patient's bone marrow biopsy, flow, and peripheral blood smear were negative. Is this coded as 9732/3, multiple myeloma (Primary Site and Histology Rule PH2) with the primary site as C809 (PH27)? Or is the primary site C421 since code 9732 says primary site is always C421, though bone marrow came back as negative?
","","Assign the primary site to C421 since that is the only allowable primary site for plasma cell myeloma, even though the bone marrow was negative. According to the revised criteria from the WHO Blue Book for Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms (2017), the presence of multiple plasmacytomas is plasma cell myeloma (9732/3).
","2020" "20200063","Solid Tumor Rules (2021)/Laterality--Melanoma: Will the table called Site for Which Laterality Code Must Be Recorded be updated in the 2021 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual as C444 is not included? The 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules say that C444 requires laterality; it says (new) beside it on the new Solid Tumor Rules for 2021.
","","The laterality table in the 2021 SEER manual will not be updated. Please follow the 2021 Cutaneous Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules and assign a laterality for C444.
","2020" "20200062","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a 7/2016 diagnosis of right lower lobe lung mucinous adenocarcinoma, treated with Erlotinib and Avastin? In 4/2020, a liver biopsy finds metastatic high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, clinically stated to be metastatic lung cancer, with no evidence of a new primary lung tumor on PET (liver the only site of disease)? See Discussion.
","We think this should be a single primary because the Solid Tumor rules do not apply to metastases. However, we are not sure whether or not the instructions outlined for prostate (SINQ 20180088, 20130221), that indicate we are to accession a new metastatic tumor only with a small cell neuroendocrine histology after an adenocarcinoma, also applies to lung primaries.
We are aware of a phenomenon in which lung adenocarcinoma cases treated with Erlotinib can transform to small cell, but do not know whether it impacts the number of reportable primaries.
","Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] per Rule M8 of the Lung Solid Tumor Rules, as these histology codes are on different rows in Table 3 of the rules. This is consistent with similar prior SINQ questions.
","2020" "20200061","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: A patient has high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation followed by carcinosarcoma. Is this one or two primaries? See Discussion.
","12-19-19 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor pathology revealed high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine features; Pathology Overread: High-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma with focal glandular and neuroendocrine differentiation. Carcinoma invades muscularis propria pT2.
Histology 8130
01/20/20 to 07/01/20, completed 6 cycles of gemcitabine/cisplatin.
07/30/20 Robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, open ileal conduit pathology revealed carcinosarcoma, invading perivesical fat, no lymphovascular invasion, negative margins. ypT3bN0M0 disease; Pathology Overread: Carcinosarcoma arising in association with high-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.
Histology 8980/3 or is there another histology that should be used?
","The carcinosarcoma is a separate tumor, abstract a new primary per M13. Code this primary to 8980/3.
Based on the information provided, the patient was first diagnosed with papillary urothelial carcinoma and received neo-adjuvant treatment for that specific histologic type. Subsequent resection identified carcinosarcoma arising within the papillary neoplasm. Carcinosarcoma is rare in bladder primaries and is not included in Table 2; however, it is a subtype/variant of sarcoma.
","2020" "20200060","First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion.
","Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?
","Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items.
","2020" "20200059","Reportability--Kidney: Is Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney reportable, and would the first CT date be the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
","CT a/p read by radiologist shows: ""Bosniak 4 cystic lesion of right kidney."" Follow-up MRI a month later reads ""right kidney cystic lesion with enhancing mural nodule concerning for cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)."" Urologist consult used the same wording of ""Bosniak 4 cystic lesion"" and ""concerning for renal cell carcinoma."" Treatment discussed but due to patient health status recommended repeat imaging. Repeat CT few months later reads: ""cystic right renal lesion with enhancing nodule similar to most recent prior and suspicious for cystic RCC.""
Though ""suspicious for cystic RCC"" per latest imaging is reportable, Bosniak 4 is ""clearly malignancy, ~100% malignant"" by definition, so is the case actually reportable with the first CT a/p date as date of diagnosis?
","2023
Bosniak 4 is defined as ""clearly malignant cystic mass."" The case is reportable as of the first date it is diagnosed as a Bosniak 4 lesion unless further workup (especially biopsy or resection) disproves the CT findings.
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/bosniak-classification-system-of-renal-cystic-masses?lang=us
","2020" "20200058","Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery Codes, NOS--Pancreas: What exactly is an extended pancreatoduodenectomy? Must the entire pancreas be resected in order to use code 70? What minimal requirements must be met to use code 70? How should a Whipple with cholecystectomy, partial omentectomy, common hepatic excision, portal vein resection, and lymphadenectomy be coded?
","","According to our research, a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) includes an en bloc resection of the pancreatic head, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, the duodenum, the upper jejunum, the distal portion of the stomach and the adjacent lymph nodes. The extended PD procedure includes extended lymphadenectomy, extended organ resection, and extended vascular resection and reconstruction.
Code 70 could be assigned without the entire pancreas being resected.
A Whipple procedure removes the head of the pancreas, duodenum, stomach and gallbladder and part the common bile duct. The portal vein resection is probably part of the common bile duct excision. If the omentectomy was performed for treatment of this primary, record it in ""Surgical Procedure of Other Site."" Record the lymphadenectomy in the lymph node data items.
","2020" "20200057","Histology--Lung: Is there a better code for SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms than 8000/3 that could be used especially given its aggressive nature? This term is not included in the Lung Solid Tumor Rules or ICD-O-3.1 and 3.2. See Discussion.
","Per Mayo consulting pathologist, the final diagnosis on this right lung biopsy is: SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm (see Comment). Comment: Sections show a poorly-differentiated malignant neoplasm without any apparent glandular, squamous, or stromal differentiation. The tumor near totally replaces the underlying lung tissue without recognizable underlying alveolar parenchyma. Immunohistochemical stains performed at Mayo Clinic (Oscar keratin, INSM1, NUT, S100, desmin and BRG1 protein encoded by SMARCA4 gene) demonstrate that the malignant cells are positive for Oscar keratin (rare cells only), synaptophysin (weak/patchy) and p63 (focal) while negative for the remaining antibodies tested. Of note, SMARCA4 stain is negative in the tumor cells. Thus, this tumor can be categorized as a SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasm, which is known to be an aggressive malignancy, likely represent a SMARCA4-deficient thoracic sarcoma, a recently described entity. SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas in the lung have been reported to be mostly adenocarcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, which would not fit for this case. Please refer to a paper published by our group (Sauter JL et al. Mod Pathol 2017;30:1422-32.
","Assign code 8020/3. SMARCA4-deficient malignant neoplasms are newly identified. WHO has not proposed an ICD-O code as of yet. Our pathology experts suggest coding to undifferentiated carcinoma until they are better classified.
","2020" "20200056","Reportability--Gallbladder: Is Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia reportable? The primary site is gallbladder.
","","Intracholecystic papillary neoplasm (ICPN) with low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia is not reportable. The WHO assigns a behavior of 0 to these neoplasms.
","2020" "20200055","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Should a case with treatment delayed due to COVID-19 be abstracted as one or two primaries? It is uncertain if the invasive tumor would be a new tumor, or deeper extension/disease progression from the original tumor. See Discussion.
","11/18/2019 Left 1st Digit/Thumb Biopsy: Atypical Melanocytic Proliferation consistent with Early Acral Lentiginous Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. (Not a reportable diagnosis for 2019.)
12/5/2019 Left 1st Digit Shave Biopsies: Malignant Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive.
1/15/2020 Started Aldara (treatment plan: use for ~3 months then Mohs/excision, but due to COVID could not get resection until 7/2020).
7/29/2020 Left Thumb Excision: Residual Melanoma in situ. Margins Positive. Treatment Plan: re-excision.
8/6/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision: Atypical Lentiginous Melanocytic Proliferation at the 12-2 margin may represent the advancing edge of melanoma in situ. (8/19/2020 Plan to treat the 12-2 margin as positive with in situ; plan for re-excision).
8/20/2020 Left Thumb Re-Excision & Left Nail Plate Excision: Malignant Acral Lentiginous Melanoma with extensive melanoma in situ. Breslow 1.3mm. Margins Positive. Nail plate & bed epithelium with hemorrhage and a mild increase in melanocyte density likely represent melanoma in situ.
9/4/2020 Left thumb partial amputation & Left axillary Sentinel Lymph Node Excision: Residual Malignant Melanoma in situ. 0/3 sentinel nodes positive.
","Abstract a single primary using the Solid Tumor Rules for melanoma. Report this melanoma as invasive (/3) as documented in the information from 8/20/2020. The treatment delay does not influence the number of primaries to be reported. Registries in SEER regions: Report the COVID-related information as directed in the COVID-19 Abstraction Guidelines, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/covid-19/.
","2020" "20200054","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion.
","Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?
Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?
","Both examples are multiple primaries.
Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart.
Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing.
The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide.
","2020" "20200053","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder. Would the metastatic diagnosis indicate a new primary? If the metastatic diagnosis indicates a new primary, would the primary site be C688 and date of diagnosis 11/14/18? See Discussion.
","7/8/16 Urinary bladder, biopsy: Non-invasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is not identified.
9/2/16 Urinary bladder, bladder tumor, transurethral resection: High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. No definite invasion identified. Muscularis propria (detrusor muscle) is identified and not involved by tumor.
1/7/17 A\S\Bladder: Noninvasive low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma. Granulomatous cystitis, consistent with BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guerin) treatment. Lamina propria is not involved with tumor. Detrusor muscle is not identified.
4/4/17 Dome: Papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade. No evidence of invasion. Muscularis propria is not present.
Patient is clearly followed for at least a year but no further information until 19 months later, 11/14/18, when biopsy of lung indicates metastatic disease.
11/14/18 Lung, right lower lobe, mass, biopsy: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis results (CK7 positive, CK20 focally positive, P63 positive, GATA3 positive, TTF1 negative and NAPSIN-A negative) support the diagnosis
","Do not use the solid tumor rules to assess the 2018 diagnosis. See Note 1 on page 20 of the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Urinary_STM.pdf
The 2018 diagnosis proves that this patient had invasive bladder cancer. Change the behavior on the abstract to /3 and use text fields to record the details.
","2020" "20200052","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Prostate: How is the histology coded for a diagnosis of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma (5%) and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (95%) from a transurethral resection of the prostate? See Discussion.
","Following the existing Solid Tumor Rules Histology Rules, it would seem this is a single primary with histology 8045 (Combined small cell carcinoma) because there is no indication there are multiple prostate tumors and Table 2 states combined adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma is Combined small cell carcinoma (8045).
Conversely, while not an exact match to this case, SINQ 20190083 implies small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the prostate are separate primaries. In that SINQ case, the patient was simultaneously diagnosed with metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate on a liver biopsy and prostate adenocarcinoma on a prostate biopsy. There is no indication that patient had separate tumors in the prostate, however the SINQ instructs to code as separate primaries.
Would the previous SINQ logic apply to synchronous diagnoses in the prostate as well? Or does code 8045 apply to this situation?
","Assign histology code 8045 for combined small cell carcinoma as this represents one tumor with mixed histologies using the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H16.
","2020" "20200051","Primary site/Unknown and ill-defined site--Melanoma: What is the primary site for a case of metastatic melanoma with an unknown primary site? See Discussion.
","A patient had posterior cervical lymphadenopathy status post biopsy and subsequent lymph node dissection showed metastatic melanoma in 2018. Workup showed no skin lesions or primary site. Final diagnosis is melanoma of unknown primary (unknown if cutaneous or non-cutaneous). Should C760 be used as the primary site for this case since the histology codes of 8700-8790 are included in the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema in SEER*RSA?
","Code primary site C449. C449 is the default primary site code for melanoma of unknown primary site. C760 should not be assigned for this case. Updates will be made to SEER*RSA to remove the melanoma histology codes from the Cervical Lymph Nodes and Unknown Primary Tumors of the Head and Neck schema.
","2020" "20200050","Surgery of Primary Site/Multiple primaries--Breast: Should the Surgery of Primary Site for the 2020 diagnosis be coded 51 (Modified radical mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast) when a partial mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection are performed for a 2011 right breast primary and a subsequent 2020 right breast primary is treated with a total mastectomy only? See Discussion.
","The patient underwent a partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy, followed by an axillary lymph node dissection for the first right breast primary in 2011. The separate 2020 right breast primary was treated with a total mastectomy and removal of one involved axillary lymph node. The operative report only refers to this as a non-sentinel lymph node, with no mention of other axillary findings.
Cumulatively, this patient has undergone a modified radical mastectomy since there were likely no remaining axillary lymph nodes. If the Surgery of Primary Site data item is cumulative, does the order of surgeries matter?
It is unclear whether this question should be directed to SINQ (for coding in a SEER registry) or to CAnswer Forum because both have addressed similar surgery related questions in the past and and there is no guidance regarding this specific situation.
","Yes, assign surgery of primary site code 51 for the 2020 diagnosis in this case. Code the cumulative effect of all surgeries to the primary site. This means that for the 2020 primary, code the cumulative effect of the surgery done in 2011 plus the surgery performed in 2020. Use text fields on both abstracts to record the details.
","2020" "20200049","Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018--Lymphoma Orbital Adnexa: What is the correct Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for the site/histology Orbit, NOS (C696), 9699/3? In SEER*RSA, Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor references code 7 (Distant), whereas SS2018 assigns code 2 (Regional)? See Discussion.
","We received an edit error in SEER*DMS on the following site/histology (Orbit, NOS (C696)/9699/3) that involved an incorrect staging code being assigned to SS2018. The staging language is identical in AJCC, EOD and SS2018. SEER*RSA notes that SS2018 should be coded distant, but in the SS2018 manual, this language is noted Regional. Staging language is: Orbital adnexal lymphoma AND extraorbital lymphoma extending beyond the orbit to adjacent structures--Bone, Brain, Maxillofacial sinuses
","To clear this edit of the derived Summary Stage (based on EOD) and the manually assigned Summary Stage (based on Summary Stage 2018), assign the manually assigned Summary Stage to 7.
For this particular case, EOD Primary Tumor 700 (which is correct based on the information received) derives Distant; however, for Summary Stage 2018, this description is under Code 2 for Regional by direct extension. This is an error. For 2022, Summary Stage for Lymphoma Ocular Adnexa description under Code 2 (Regional by direct extension) will be moved to Distant. No changes will be done to EOD.
","2020" "20200048","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right lower lobe invasive acinar adenocarcinoma (8551/3) in 2018 and treated with lobectomy, followed by a 2019 right middle lobe cancer (NOS, 8000/3) diagnosed as new stage 1 primary by cancer conference? See Discussion.
","Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes.
","Use M14 and code a single primary. Per our SME, carcinoma or cancer, NOS is not an acceptable diagnosis which is why 8000 and 8010 were not included in the tables or rules. We assume there was no tissue diagnosis for the 2019 diagnosis. We recommend searching for more information or better documentation on this case.
","2020" "20200047","Stage-related Data Item/Lymphovascular Invasion--Ovary: The 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual states that LVI is coded 8 (Not applicable) for Ovary (Schema 00551). What is the reason for having lymphovascular invasion (LVI) coded ""8"" for Ovary? See Discussion.
","This direction is also in SEER*RSA for Ovary. Researching a possible explanation for this, we found that LVI is an independent predictor of progression and survival in patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer at early stage but not at advanced stage. However, studies also recommend that routine evaluation of LVI in ovarian cancer is highly recommended in daily practice.
","The coding instructions were developed and implemented in concert with the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, and updated with the 8th edition as per the 2018 STORE Manual and were based on sites where distinguishing between lymphatic/small vessel invasion and venous/large vessel invasion was not medically appropriate.
SEER required LVI for penis and testis cases only beginning in 2016; sites other than penis or testis are coded 8 unless required by state or central registries. The list for use of code 8 has been changed for 2021 and will no longer include Ovary.
","2020" "20200046","Reportability--Vulva: Is well differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (dVIN) reportable? See Discussion.
","Is this histologic terminology synonymous with 8071/2 Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia?
Per the 7/20/2018 updates to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology list, the reportability flag was changed from N to Y for Differentiated-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as well as Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia, both 8071/2. It appears that both SINQ 20180020 and the second half of SINQ 20160069 are no longer valid and should be deleted.
","Report well-differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasm (8071/2). Our expert pathologist consultant regards this as reportable. Well-differentiated is synonymous with differentiated in this context.
The older SINQ questions have been removed.
","2020" "20200045","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Diagnostic Confirmation coded to 5 or 8 based on a patient diagnosed as multiple myeloma by a physician based on a bone marrow biopsy stating plasma cell neoplasm? See Discussion.
","Bone marrow, right iliac crest (aspirate smear, touch preparation, clot section and core biopsy): Hypercellular marrow (40-50%) with plasma cell neoplasm (see Comment): "" No evidence of metastatic carcinoma. "" Adequate iron storage.
Comment: CBC data shows normocytic anemia. Flow cytometric analysis of bone marrow detects a kappa restricted plasma cell population that expresses CD138 and CD38. CD56 is positive. CD19 and CD20 are negative. T lymphocytes are immunophenotypically unremarkable. Polyclonal B lymphocytes are detected. Blast gate is not significantly increased. Immunohistochemical stains are performed on the biopsy core and clot section for greater sensitivity and further architectural assessment with adequate controls. CD138 positive plasma cells comprise > 70% of the total cellularity. AE1/AE3 is negative. Taken together, the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings are consistent with a diagnosis of plasma cell neoplasm. Trilineage hematopoietic activity as are seen.
","This would be a Diagnostic Confirmation of 8 based on the physician's diagnosis.
The Pathology report mentions plasma cell neoplasm only. By itself, plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable because it includes a variety of diseases, some that are not reportable, and some that are (See Hematopoietic Database under Plasma Cell Neoplasm.)
The physician probably has other information, including imaging, which may show lytic lesions. He/she is probably using clinical findings, plus findings from the bone marrow, and diagnosing this patient with multiple myeloma.
","2020" "20200044","Reportability/Histology--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia, moderate to severe, reportable and if so, what are the histology and behavior codes? See Discussion.
","Left Eye Conjunctiva, biopsy (01/23/2018): Conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe. Is intraepithelial neoplasia moderate to severe the same as coding 8077/2?
","Report this case as 8077/2. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this and confirmed it is reportable. Here is some of his rationale.
The pathologist's designation as ""moderate to severe"" indicates there are areas of 2/3 of full thickness epithelial change, so the criteria to report are met.
","2020" "20200043","Histology/Behavior--Bladder: Is the behavior of a bladder tumor with low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma /2 or /3? See Discussion.
","Transurethral resection: Microscopic Diagnosis: Bladder, transurethral resection: Low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma Gross Description: Received in formalin labeled with the patient's name and bladder tumor is a 3.0 x 2.0 1.0 cm aggregate of friable tan tissue biopsies. The specimen is submitted in toto, cassettes
This is all the information there is on this path report. Extent of Disease (EOD) instructions state inferred description of noninvasive: No statement of invasion (microscopic description present) SEER 2018 Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines state code behavior 3 if the only surgery performed is a transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB) documenting that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen OR the pathology report does not mention whether the submucosa is free of tumor or has been invaded by tumor.
","For cases diagnosed 2021 or later
Code the behavior as in situ (/2) when the diagnosis is low grade urothelial carcinoma and there is no information regarding invasion. The SEER Manual Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines revision reflects this change. No changes have been made to EOD at this time.
The guidelines have been updated as follows.
Low grade urothelial carcinoma with no other information: Code to /2.
High grade urothelial carcinoma with no other information: Code to /3.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2021
Code the behavior as malignant (/3) for a bladder tumor with low-grade papillary urothelial carcinoma.
","2020" "20200042","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the histology coded when the diagnosis comment for a posterior fossa tumor resection states: Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity? See Discussion.
","Example: Posterior fossa tumor resection final diagnosis was medulloblastoma, WHO Grade IV. The diagnosis comment notes the current tumor resection reveals large irregular reticulin-free nodules with streams of neoplastic cells in a fibrillary background in association with narrow reticulin-rich internodular strands of poorly differentiated neoplastic cells. Taken together, these findings are indicative of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity. The diagnosis comment provided only one histology.
Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Manual, Malignant CNS, Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology instructions, an addendum or comment has priority over the final diagnosis. Although indicative is not listed on any ambiguous terminology list, is this an ambiguous diagnosis that must be ignored? Or does the diagnosis comment in this case provide a single, specific diagnosis of medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity?
","Code as medulloblastoma, nodular (9471/3) based on the findings from both the comment and final diagnosis.
","2020" "20200041","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an intradural T12/L1 capillary hemangioma reportable? See Discussion.
","Example: MRI found an intradural, extra-axial mass at T12/L1 with possible intramedullary component. Resection of the intradural intramedullary and extramedullary spinal cord tumor found a capillary hemangioma pathologically. The microscopic description on the path report describes a tumor with extensive vascularity involving the dura.
Should we equate the statement of capillary to mean the tumor is arising in a blood vessel as we do for venous hemangioma (non-reportable per SINQ 20130001)? Or should it be reportable as C700, 9131/0 because it is described as involving the dura (intradural, intramedullary and extramedullary)?
","Reportability of capillary hemangioma depends on the site of origin. If it originates in the dura, it is reportable. If it originates in a blood vessel, it is not reportable. The site of origin is not clear in the information provided. Sites of involvement are mentioned, but not the site of origin. Capillary could refer to the site of origin or to the propensity of this tumor to form tiny blood vessels. If the site of origin cannot be confirmed as dura, do not report this neoplasm.
","2020" "20200040","Reportability--Skin: Is pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMH) reportable with morphology code 9133/3? See Discussion.
","According to the literature, PMH is a low-grade malignant vascular neoplasm of different tissue planes including skin and soft tissue. However, the references also state: PMH is a cutaneous tumor that behaves in an indolent fashion. There is no indication that this was a malignant diagnosis.
12/3/18 Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Superficial squamous epithelium demonstrating hyperkeratosis and fragments of keratin debris, no tumor seen.
Foot, left skin lesion, punch biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.
NOTE: The submitted immunohistochemical slides were reviewed. Positive and negative controls reacted appropriately. The tumor cells demonstrate immunoreactivity to CK AE1/AE3 and CK7. The CD31 immunoreactivity described in the report cannot be confirmed as only the positive control is submitted for review. The tumor cells are negative for desmin, CD45, CD68, S-100, CD34, SMA, CD20, and HHV8. The proliferative index via Ki-67 is approximately 10%. The morphology (described below) and immunohistochemistry performed are compatible with a pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.
12/4/18 Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Foot, left bone lesion, biopsy: Pseudomyogenic (epithelioid sarcoma-like) hemangioendothelioma, see note.
Note: The patient's imaging findings were reviewed in conjunction with this case, revealing numerous lytic lesions of the tibia, fibula, talus, tarsal, metatarsal, and phalangeal bones. Additionally, as per the medical record, also reviewed in conjunction with this case, there are lesions of the skin. Thus, an extensive immunohistochemical panel was performed in an attempt to support the morphologic findings in this case, which were morphologically similar to the patient's skin biopsy. The tumor cells demonstrate strong immunoreactivity to pancytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3) and vimentin with moderate immunoreactivity to Fli-1. The tumor cells demonstrate weak immunoreactivity to epithelial membrane antigen. INI-1 is retained. There is focal immunoreactivity to CD31 although this is limited to the edges of the tissue fragments. The tumor cells are negative for HHV-8, CD34, smooth muscle actin, CK8/18, desmin, CD99, and Bcl-2. The combination of morphologic (see below for microscopic description) and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma. Fresh tissue was submitted for karyotype analysis at the time of intraoperative consultation; however, it revealed only a normal appearing male karyotype. Thus, molecular confirmation was sought. The original slides and a paraffin block were submitted for FOSB rearrangement analysis, as pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is known to have recurrent rearrangements with FOSB. Additional immunohistochemistry performed at (FACILITY) demonstrating immunoreactivity for ERG, supporting a vascular origin for this neoplasm. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated that 13% of the cells examined show FOSB rearrangement. While this FISH probe is for investigational purposes, the above findings support the diagnosis of pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma.
","Do not report PMH. The WHO Classification of Skin Tumors lists pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma as a borderline malignancy (9138/1). Borderline malignancies of the skin are not reportable.
","2020" "20200039","EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--GIST: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) and Summary Stage be coded for a multifocal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.
","For this case, report each GIST diagnosis separately. This differs from SINQ 20190041 because in that case the stomach GIST was incidental and measured only 0.3 cm. Reporting these separately means that each one is no longer a multifocal tumor. If there is no other indication of malignancy for these, they would not be reportable if diagnosed in 2020 or earlier.
For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, all GIST are reportable. Report this as two primaries. Use the new GIST schema for EOD and assign EOD Primary Tumor 100 for each. There is no mention of extension outside the primary site. Summary Stage is Localized for each.
","2020" "20200038","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Can the stated histology from a biomarker/immunohistochemistry (IHC) report be used for coding histology? See Discussion.
","Example: Diagnosis is made on liver core biopsy path showing Metastatic carcinoma, poorly-differentiated, consistent with lung primary. Diagnosis Comment notes: Carcinoma cells are positive for CK7 and TTF-1, negative for CK20.
Subsequent immunohistochemistry report for PD-L1 testing states Liver: Metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary. Interpretation: no PD-L1 expression.
IHC/Biomarker testing is often performed to determine treatment type, but it seems like some of the biomarkers for treatment planning are also histology specific. The Solid Tumor Rules do not address the use of biomarkers reports in the histology coding instructions.
","Code this case to adenocarcinoma 8140/3. Biomarkers are often reported separately, not as part of the addendum, and can be used to code histology. This applies to cases diagnosed by metastatic site only.
","2020" "20200036","Reportability--Skin: Is malignant proliferative trichilemmal tumor (PTT) reportable, and if so, do we apply the matrix rule and code it to 8103/3? A literature search reveals these do exist, but are extremely rare.
","","Malignant PTT (8103/3) of the skin is not reportable. A neoplasm originating in the skin with histology coded to 8103 is not reportable. See 1.b.i. on page 7 in the 2018 SEER manual for a complete list, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_maindoc.pdf
","2020" "20200035","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Brain and CNS: Is the expression differential considerations a synonym for differential diagnoses? See Discussion.
","Example: An MRI Spine showed a large expansile mass arising from the sella turcica and extending into the suprasellar cistern, but the radiologist only noted: The leading differential considerations include pituitary macroadenoma or a large suprasellar base meningioma. The patient was subsequently pathologically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma. It is unclear if the diagnosis date should be coded to the MRI date.
There are two existing SINQ questions regarding the term consider. SINQ 20061094 confirms a diagnosis that is considered to be is reportable because it is unambiguous, but SINQ 20081033 states the phrase malignancy is highly considered is not a reportable ambiguous term.
How should we interpret differential considerations? If differential considerations is equivalent to a differential diagnosis, then this patient was clinically diagnosed on imaging. However, if differential considerations is not reportable, then there was no diagnosis prior to the resection.
","In an ideal situation, the radiologist should be consulted to determine what he/she meant by ""differental considerations."" If that is not possible, given the context and usage, ""differential considerations"" in this case can be interpreted as differential diagnoses. And since the two differential considerations are both reportable, this case is reportable as of the date of the MRI.
","2020" "20200034","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for 2020 breast lumpectomy final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? Summary Cancer Data and CAP Summary states: Invasive carcinoma with the following features: Histologic type: Tubular adenocarcinoma. See Discussion.
","Per the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules instructions, Final Diagnosis and Staging Summary (synoptic report) have equal coding priority. However, it is unclear which takes priority, or if this should be a combination of components, when the histologies are two different specific histologic types per Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules Manual.
","In this case, the pathologist states two different histologies. Per the H rules, when there are different histologies, code the histology which comprises the majority of tumor. Use H16 and code histology stated to be more than 50% of tumor OR H17, code 8523 when percentage is not stated or unknown.
","2020" "20200033","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primary tumors should be abstracted for a 2018 breast excision with a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0.7 cm) with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present as discontinuous foci, spanning 12 cm? See Discussion.
","If the term discontinuous foci means separate tumors, then rule M14 would apply making these multiple reportable tumors.
","Abstract two primaries, invasive mucinous and DCIS, using 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast, M14, as the discontinuous foci are separate tumors in this example and the histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the rules.
","2020" "20200032","Date of Diagnosis--Brain and CNS: How is the Date of Diagnosis coded when an MRI clinically diagnoses a borderline brain tumor on 4/4/2020, but the subsequent biopsy pathologically diagnoses a malignant brain tumor on 5/20/2020? See Discussion.
","Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date.
For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed?
","This tumor was first diagnosed on 4/4/2020 according to the information provided. The pineocytoma was reportable based on a behavior of /1; it was later confirmed as a pineal germinoma; update both the histology and behavior on the abstract as better information was obtained, retaining the original date of diagnosis.
","2020" "20200031","Histology/Behavior--Breast: How are histology and behavior coded for a case originally diagnosed as in situ and later an invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed but still a single primary using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M10? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20200022 indicates that cases originally diagnosed as in situ do not have a new primary when a new invasive tumor with a different histology is diagnosed within 5 years. Should histology and/or behavior get updated for the in situ breast primary?
","Update the histology and behavior based on the invasive tumor when an invasive tumor is diagnosed within 5 years of an in situ tumor in the same breast. This will be updated in the 2021 revisions of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules.
","2020" "20200030","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned for the following patient scenario?
1) 09/2014 Left upper lobe (LUL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with lobectomy.
2) 04/2016 Right lower lobe (RLL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with wedge resection.
3) 04/2019 (within 3 years, but masked full date) Left lower lobe (LLL), unifocal, non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) with brain metastasis. See Discussion.
","Rule M4 does not seem to apply because Note 1 defines clinically disease free to mean no evidence of recurrence in the same lung on follow-up. Patient had been disease free in the left lung after 09/2014 diagnosis. The 04/2019 diagnosis was in a different lung than the 4/2016 diagnosis.
The next applicable rule is either M11 or M14 depending on how we should compare the new 2019 tumor: to the most recent prior tumor in 2016 or to both prior tumors.
","Abstract three primary tumors according to the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules as follows :
2014: LUL, single primary using M2
2016: RLL, multiple primary; abstract second primary using M11 (different lung)
2019: LLL, multiple primary after reapplying rules using M4 when comparing to the same lung in 2014. Abstract this tumor as it has been more than three years and it appears the patient had no clinical evidence of disease in the left lung until 2019.
","2020" "20200029","Systemic/Surgery Sequence: The note associated with code 4 in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence in the 2018 SEER Manual says: Code 4 is intended for situations with at least two episodes or courses of systemic therapy. Does this mean two different types of systemic therapy before and after surgery? See Discussion.
","For example, chemotherapy and immunotherapy administered first, followed by surgery, then immunotherapy and hormone therapy after surgery. Or is code 4 used for two administrations of chemotherapy before surgery and two more courses after surgery?
","Assign code 4 for the example you describe. Code 4 also applies to cases with one course of chemotherapy before surgery and another course after surgery.
","2020" "20200028","2018 EOD Primary Tumor/2018 EOD Mets--Lung: Is EOD Primary Tumor coded to 500 and EOD Mets 10 when there are bilateral lung nodules with nodules in same lobe as the primary tumor? How is EOD Primary Tumor coded when separate tumor nodes are in an ipsilateral lung but there is no documentation as to whether it is in the same or different ipsilateral lobe from the primary tumor?
","","Assign 999 to EOD Primary Tumor if this is the only information you have for your case.The mention of nodules does not automatically mean that you have separate tumor nodules. There are many reasons for the appearance of nodules in the lung, some of which are not due to cancer. Unless you have further information on whether the physician has determined that they are related to the lung cancer, then assume that they are not related.
Assign 00 to EOD Mets. Do not code EOD Mets to 10 since you cannot determine whether those nodules are based on the tumor or not.
If you are able to obtain more information, then you can update the EOD Primary Tumor and EOD Mets.
Regarding the second question, if separate tumor nodules are noted, you cannot assume that they are due to tumor. Further information, or clarification, is needed on whether the separate tumor nodules are related to the lung cancer. Without further information, code EOD Primary Tumor to 999.
There is also some information in the CAnswer Forum since Separate Tumor Nodules are a Site-Specific Data Item: http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/forum/site-specific-data-items-grade-2018/96061-lung-separate-tumor-nodules
","2020" "20200027","Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging?
SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list?
","Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable.
","2020" "20200026","EOD 2018--Lung: How should EOD Primary Tumor be coded when imaging describes a large left upper lobe 9.1 cm mass that Also noted is no pleural effusion and normal chest wall. See Discussion.
","It is unclear if code 300 is appropriate, since technically the fissure is comprised of pleura, involvement of the fissure appears to imply a tumor that is no longer localized.
An argument could be made for code 400, since the term traverses could be interpreted as crossing into adjacent lobe, however the lower lobe is not mentioned in this scan.
","Assign code 400 as the term ""traverses"" indicates involvement with extension to the major fissure and is no longer confined to the left lobe.
","2020" "20200025","Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Bone: Is a case reportable when the imaging described a left first rib mass as ? See Discussion.
","The radiologist noted the mass was most compatible with a chondroid lesion, which is not reportable on its own, but can the subsequent term be used to accession this as reportable if only one malignant etiology is provided by the radiologist? Or does the statement imply that this is only one of several possible etiologies?
","Review this case with the involved physicians to determine their opinion on the bone mass. Review the plans for further evaluation and treatment (if any) to determine whether the physicians view this case as a chondroid lesion, chondrosarcoma, or something else.
If it is not possible to obtain further information, do not report the case at this time. If further information becomes available, review the case again for reportability.
","2020" "20200024","Reportability/Histology--Fallopian tube: Is germ cell neoplasia in situ reportable? If so, is the histology and behavior 9064/2? See Discussion.
","Pathology report dated 10/17/2019: Final Diagnosis: Fallopian tubes and gonads, right and left, excision: Dysgenetic gonadal tissue with nests and tubules of atypical germ cells suspicious for gonadoblastoma and at least germ cell neoplasia in situ; and segments of fallopian tube (pending expert consultation).
","Report germ cell neoplasia in situ as 9064/2. Override the site/type edit.
","2020" "20200023","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Endometrium: Is the histology for a serous carcinoma, high-grade endometrial primary 8441/3 (serous carcinoma) or 8461/3 (high grade serous carcinoma)? See Discussion.
","Path report reads: 7/15/2019 A. Endometrium, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. B. Endometrial polyp, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade.
If coded to 8461/3, according to AJCC, this would not be an ideal code (since it is outdated). Also, endometrium is not included in the suggested site codes for 8461/3 according to the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 update.
","Code histology for this endometrial primary to serous carcinoma 8441/3. Capture ""high grade"" in the grade field as instructed in the grade coding manual.
""High grade serous carcinoma"" has specific clinical and histopathologic features found in ovarian tumors.
","2020" "20200022","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a December 2013 diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ (8520/2) in the left breast, treated with a lumpectomy, followed by a July 2018 diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3) also in the left breast? See Discussion.
","In the April and July 2019 updates to the Solid Tumor Rules, the term simultaneous and Note 1 indicating histologies must be the same behavior were removed from rule M10 (ductal and lobular are a single primary).
We would like to confirm that rule M10 is the correct rule to apply to this case. This case is an invasive diagnosis approximately 4.5 years after an in situ diagnosis, so it seems like M17 should apply (invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later are multiple primaries).
An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of the same histology is a new primary. Similarly, it seems like an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later of different histologies should be a new primary.
","Abstract a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M10.
Unless the tumors were diagnosed more than 5 years apart, they are a single primary. The 2021 breast update will include examples and notes plus updating table 2.
","2020" "20200021","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology of human papillomavirus (HPV)--associated multiphenotypic carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Histologic Type: HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. Overall, the morphology, immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing results support the diagnosis of an HPV-related multiphenotypic carcinoma. This entity has been described in the sinonasal region, where it behaves more indolently than its other salivary gland carcinoma counterparts (e.g., adenoid cystic carcinoma), with local recurrence but rare metastases.
","Assign code 8072/3 for HPV-associated multiphenotypic carcinoma. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 4th edition, lists sinonasal tract HPV-related carcinoma with adenoid cystic-like features as a subtype of non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (NKSCC).Use text fields to record the details.
","2020" "20200020","Reportability/Brain and CNS--Pituitary: Can a clinical diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned based on imaging if treatment is not given and subsequent imaging years later shows no evidence of pituitary adenoma? See Discussion.
","The patient was clinically diagnosed with a pituitary adenoma on MRI in June 2009. The MRI noted an unusual contour involving the superior margin of the pituitary gland and the clinical interpretation was a small pituitary adenoma. The patient did not follow-up with the recommended repeat imaging and never received treatment for the pituitary adenoma.
The patient was eventually seen again in January 2020 and the MRI showed no adenoma in the pituitary gland. Since pituitary adenomas are known to spontaneously regress, should the 2009 diagnosis of pituitary adenoma be accessioned as a SEER reportable benign central nervous system (CNS) tumor?
","Pituitary adenoma is reportable even if it later regresses without treatment. Use text fields to record the details of this case.
","2020" "20200019","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is Diagnostic Confirmation ""5"" for Hematopoietic Neoplasms appropriate for this case? There appears to be no conclusive histologic diagnosis (Neoplasm, suggestive of lymphoma) and only the IHC/flow cytometry issued a conclusive diagnosis. See Discussion.
","10/4/2018 Frozen Section Diagnosis: Brain tissue with atypical cells and inflammatory cells, defer to permanents for further evaluation. Note: Tissue for flow cytometry is submitted. Final Diagnosis: Preliminary Diagnosis: Brain Tumor, Biopsy: Neoplasm, suggestive of lymphoma (see comment). Comment: The tumor exhibits nuclear atypia and increased mitosis. The tumor cells are immunologically positive for LCA and with very high ki67 labeling index. GFAP and synaptophysin are not expressed by tumor cells. The above suggests a lympho-proliferative process. This case is forwarded to the hematopathology service of this department for further evaluation. The final diagnosis report will be issued by the hematopathologist as an addendum.
Supp Rpt Add Addendum Diagnosis: The brain biopsy showed brain tissue large lymphoid cell infiltrate. Additional immunohistochemical stains are performed. The large cells are positive for CD20, BCL2, BCL6 (subset), MUM1, and CD30, negative for CD3, CD5, and CD10. Staining for c-MYC is negative. Ki-67 positive large cells are approximately 18%. EBER is strongly positive by ISH. Diagnosis: Brain lesion, biopsy: EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma. Addendum Comment: The concurrent flow cytometric study showed monoclonal lambda-positive B-cells without out CD5 and CD10 expression, consistent with B-cell lymphoma.
","Assign Diagnostic Confirmation as code 3, positive histology plus positive immunophenotyping. The biopsy diagnosis demonstrated EBV+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with positive staining as indicated in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database.The information received from the additional studies confirm the more specific diagnosis.
","2020" "20200018","Reportability: Is ASIN-H (high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia) equivalent to anal intraepithelial neoplasia, III (AIN III)?
","","High-grade anal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (ASIN-H) is synonynous with anal intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (AIN III).
","2020" "20200017","Histology--Head & Neck: Why is 8070 not listed as a valid histology for ill-defined sites as squamous cell carcinoma arises in the head and neck sites. See Discussion.
","Per the site validation list: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/sitetype.icdo3.20190618.pdf#search=site%20validation, ill-defined sites (ILL-DEFINED C760-C768) does not include 8070- Squamous cell carcinoma as a valid histology. Therefore when a Cervical Lymph Node and Unknown Primary Tumor of the Head and Neck is submitted with a C760 and 8070/3, it requires an override be set.
","Histology code 8070 has been added to C760 on the site validation list. It will be updated for 2021. Continue to override this combination for now.
","2020" "20200016","Reportability/Histology--Vulva: Is Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) reportable? See Discussion.
","Patient had a vulvar biopsy with final diagnosis of Extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm). No invasion identified. We are unable to contact the pathologist or physician for clarification.
Although this terminology is not listed in the ICD-O-3, web search results refer to this as a possible synonym for Paget disease with associated VIN III, which is reportable.
","According to our subject matter expert, vulvar extramammary Paget neoplasm (intraepithelial glandular neoplasm) represents an in situ malignancy and should be reported.
He states ""The traditional terminology should be 'extramammary Paget disease' to describe an in situ adenocarcinoma arising from extramammary glands in vulvar mucosa. I am not so sure about ""extramammary Paget NEOPLASM"", which may include all three Pagetoid processes: the traditional Paget disease, the Pagetoid spreading of an anal adenocarcinoma and a Pagetoid spreading of an urothelial carcinoma from the urethra. Regardless, all these entities are considered at least in situ carcinomas.""
We recommend that you review clinical records and imaging for the clinical scenarios mentioned above.
","2020" "20200015","Tumor Size--Clinical--Breast: Does information from any type of biopsy take precedence over an imaging report? See Discussion.
","For example, a patient has a 2.6 cm breast tumor on MRI; a core biopsy measuring 0.7 cm is positive for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Rule #1 states ""Use the largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment."" However, Rule #9 seems to imply that size from an ""incisional biopsy"" takes precedence over imaging, even though it is known to be less than the entire tumor in size.
","We do not recommend using the size from a core biopsy for clinical tumor size. A core biopsy does not necessarily obtain enough tissue to know the actual tumor size. Since there is imaging for this patient, it is preferable to record clinical tumor size from the imaging report in this case.
The instructions will be clarified in the next revision of the SEER manual.
","2020" "20200014","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: How are histology and primary site coded when a resection of a spine, designated intramedullary lesion, shows primary intramedullary melanocytoma? See Discussion.
","Patient has a resection labeled as: Spine, designated intramedullary lesion. The Final Diagnosis is: Melanocytic neoplasm with features most consistent with primary intramedullary melanocytoma. The Diagnosis Comment states: The overall immunophenotypic and morphologic impression is a primary central nervous system melanocytoma.
The ICD-O-3 lists melanocytoma, NOS histology code as 8726/0, but does not provide a site-associated code. If the ICD-O-3 is used, the histology would be 8726/0 and the primary site presumably would be C720 since the tumor was specifically described as being intramedullary (i.e., within the spinal cord medulla).
Table 6 (Solid Tumor Rules, Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) does not list either an intramedullary melanocytoma or melanocytoma (NOS). However, Table 6 does include meningeal melanocytosis 8728/0 and meningeal melanocytoma 8728/1. If Table 6 is used and the histology is coded 8728/1, then the primary site would presumably be C701 per the ICD-O-3 site-associated listing for this histology (C709).
","Code primary site to spinal meninges (C701) and histology to meningeal melanocytoma (8728/1).
According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 4th ed., primary melanocytic neoplasms of the central nervous system are diffuse or localized tumors that presumably arise from leptomeningeal melanocytes. Benign or intermediate grade lesions are termed melanocytomas. Meningeal melanocytoma is defined as a well-differentiated, solid, and non-infiltrative melanocytic neoplasm that arises from leptomeningeal melanocytes. Most arise in the extramedullary, intradural compartment at the cervical and thoracic spine though they can be dural-based or associated with nerve roots or spinal foramina.
","2020" "20200013","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Solid Tumor Rules 2018, Colon Rule M7, bullet 3 indicates that (if neither bullet 1 or 2 apply) a new tumor at the anastomotic site must be stated to arise in the mucosa (confirmed in SINQ 20190096) to qualify as a new primary. However, there is often no clear statement of tumor arising from or involving mucosa (unless the new tumor is limited to the mucosa) noted by pathologists in our region. Do any of the following examples imply a new tumor arising in mucosa per Rule M7, bullet 3? See Discussion.
","Examples:
1) New tumor at the ileocolic anastomosis, described as a, Circumferential centrally ulcerated mass with raised borders. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through muscularis propria into subserosal adipose tissue, no involvement of the serosal surface identified. The only mention of mucosa on the resection is the uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa in the otherwise uninvolved portions of the ileum/colon. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?
2) Right colon with anastomosis site. Tumor site: Anastomosis. Tumor extension: Tumor invades through the muscularis propria. Gross description does not describe mucosa, only noting, at the central area of anastomosis is an ill-defined, slightly raised, tan-brown to purple mass measuring 2.2 x 2 cm, which is nearly circumferential, causing obstruction at the site of anastomosis. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?
3) Polyp at ileocolonic anastomosis, polyp biopsy final diagnosis was, Invasive moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in association with adenoma. No mention of mucosa on the biopsy final diagnosis or gross description. Clinical info indicates, There is an ulcerated 5 cm mass at the ileo-colonic anastomosis that was biopsied. If neither bullet 1 or 2 apply, is this a new primary per M7 bullet 3?
","Following the 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rules M7 and M8:
Example 1: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 Bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as the pathology states uninvolved enteric mucosa or uninvolved colonic mucosa (no involvement noted).
Example 2: Assuming the first and second tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement.
Example 3: Assuming the first and second polyps/tumors are not different histologies or they occurred less than or equal to 24 months apart (M7 bullets 1 and 2 do not apply), abstract a single primary as there is no mention of mucosal involvement. Of note in the case of the polyp, tumors coded as adenocarcinoma in a polyp, should be treated as adenocarcinoma (8140) for cases prior to 2018. Also, if the pathologist states the new tumor/polyp originated in the mucosa, it is a new primary.
The rules which address ""recurrence or new tumor at the anastomosis were created with the input of several gastrointestinal expert pathologists (CAP, AJCC, and WHO). Pathologists should be following CAP reporting guidelines and include information such as mucosal involvement in the final diagnosis and/or synoptic report. We can revisit this question that all polyps start in the mucosa and if needed, revise the rules to state this.
","2020" "20200012","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ring sideroblasts in 2005, and stated to have progressed to high risk disease/early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 09/2019? See Discussion.
","The bone marrow biopsy proved bone marrow with blasts comprising 15-19%. Neither the pathologist nor the physician specifically diagnosed this as AML, calling this only high risk disease or early evolving AML prior to starting the patient on Vidaza.
No further information can be obtained from the pathologist or the physician for this case. Should this early evolving AML be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M10, or is this the same MDS that is now high risk as the blast count is up to 19%, but has not yet reached the threshold of 20% blasts usually required for AML per the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database?
","Abstract a single primary as we do not abstract early/evolving AML. This is still one primary until there is a confirmed diagnosis of AML.
","2020" "20200011","Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion.
","Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not.
In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)?
","Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data.
We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update.
","2020" "20200010","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with both squamous cell carcinoma and mucoepidermoid carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Patient had a radical pharyngectomy showing a glossotonsillar sulcus tumor with high grade squamous cell carcinoma and adjacent high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma. The pathologist commented, the tumor is composed of high grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma and high grade conventional-type squamous cell carcinoma that are immediately adjacent to one another. Given that the tumors are arising so close together and could represent a single neoplastic process with divergent morphologies, they are staged together.
Employing Solid Tumor Manual Rule M1 (single primary if unable to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors), it was determined that this should be reported as a single tumor because the pathologist referred to the case as both a tumor singular and tumors pleural. However, the Solid Tumor Manual Histology Rules for a Single Tumor do not appear to have an instruction for coding this histology combination.
","Abstract multiple primaries using 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 as these are separate tumors described as arising close together, and are on different rows in Table 3. Code histology separately as squamous cell carcinoma (8070/3) and mucoepidermoid carcinoma (8430/3).
This appears to be a collision tumor. Collision tumors are counted as two individual tumors for the purpose of determining multiple primaries. Collision tumors were originally two separate tumors that arose in close proximity. As the tumors increased in size, they merged or overlapped each other. While more common in the colon, they can occur in other sites as well.
","2020" "20200009","First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Is an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary site recorded under Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.
","Per SEER 20140003, an omentectomy is not recorded under Surgery of Other Site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary. Is this still correct? CoC appears to have different guidelines stating in a forum that an omentectomy is coded in data item Surgical Procedure to Other Site. I would like to confirm SEER guidelines. Is this one of those unique situations that SEER and STORE differ? Our state follows SEER guidelines and would like to communicate the appropriate rules to our facilities.
","Continue to record an omentectomy performed with a hysterectomy under Surgery of Primary Site and not as a separate procedure under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. The guidance In SINQ 2014003 and 20091118 is unchanged.
","2020" "20200008","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Corpus uteri: How many primaries are accessioned for patient with a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp in 2001, followed by a metastatic poorly differentiated clear cell carcinoma of gynecologic (GYN) origin in 2019? See Discussion.
","The patient has a history of a minimally invasive endometrial adenocarcinoma that was low grade and confined to an endometrial polyp in 2001. The patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) that entirely removed the tumor at that time.
Almost 18 years later, the patient had a left inguinal mass excision that was, Carcinoma of gynecologic origin, consistent with clear cell carcinoma. No other disease was found, the physician never indicated whether this was felt to be metastatic from the previous, low grade adenocarcinoma or not. It was only noted as, an unusual malignancy of the left lower quadrant and inguinal region of gynecologic origin. No further information was available in the medical record or from the physician on follow-up.
Although neither the Solid Tumor Rules nor the MPH Rules (still in use for the Other Sites schema) apply to metastasis, given the differences in histology and behavior of these two tumors (i.e., minimally invasive, low grade disease diagnosed in 2001 vs. higher grade, more aggressive tumor in 2019) should the current clear cell carcinoma of GYN origin really be the same primary as the 2001 endometrial adenocarcinoma?
","Abstract a multiple primaries using 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rule M10 as these tumors are more than one year apart. This represents endometrioid adenocarcinoma (8380/3 of C541) and 18 years later, clear cell Carcinoma (8310/3 consistent with GYN (C579) primary).
","2020" "20200007","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-0) on a single bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.
","The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB) definition for systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN, 9741/3) states SM-AHN is a variant of systemic mastocytosis that arises with a myeloid disease of non-mast cell lineage (e.g., MDS, MPN, etc.) and that,
However, SINQ 20130172 conflicts with the Heme DB stating the systemic mastocytosis and the associated hematological neoplasm are a single primary coded to a single histology (9741/3) per Rule M2.
","Abstract a single primary when the diagnosis is systemic mastocytosis with an associated clonal hematogoical non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (9741/3). However, if the patient has a previous history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia, abstract the SM-AHNMD as a second primary as stated in the Heme DB.
SINQ 20130172 represents a single primary as there is no mention of a prior history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia.
","2020" "20200006","Reportability--Retina: Is a diagnosis of retinal astrocytoma reportable? See Discussion.
","There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for a which resulted in abstractors assigning the malignant astrocytoma, NOS code. These lesions were previously called but we are seeing the new terminology more frequently.
","Report retinal astrocytoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Eye, 4th edition, lists astrocytoma, NOS as 9400/3 with astrocytic hamartoma of the retina as a synonym. You may receive a site/type edit (IF25) which can be overridden.
The changes in terminology, codes, etc. proposed in WHO 4th Ed Eye book were implemented for cases diagnosed 1/1/2018 forward. Apply this to retina astrocytomas and do not accession cases diagnosed with this histology prior to 1/1/2018.
","2020" "20200005","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what M rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with both plasmablastic lymphoma and at least one plasmacytoma? See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with an EBV-positive plasmablastic lymphoma involving the left testis on radical orchiectomy in April 2019.
In September 2019, a plasmacytoma was found on a right mandibular mass biopsy. Imaging at that time revealed diffuse disease involving the thoracic spine and sinus involvement. The patient then underwent a resection of the T8 spinal/epidural tumor that also proved plasmacytoma.
Subsequently, the right mandibular mass and testis slides were reviewed (at an outside facility) and both were stated to be, The T8/epidural tumor pathology was not reviewed, so it is unclear if this is also assumed to be the same disease process as the right mandibular mass or still a separate, solitary plasmacytoma.
Additionally, some chart notes indicate the patient has plasmablastic lymphoma with a secondary diagnosis of plasmacytoma, while other chart notes state this is stage IV plasmablastic lymphoma involving all documented sites. Although the plasmablastic lymphoma and at least the plasmacytoma of T8 have different ICD-O-3 histology codes, the physicians do seem to be treating this as a single disease process.
","Abstract multiple primaries using the Heme and Lymphoid Rule M15. The Multiple Primaries Calculator shows that the plasmablastic lymphoma (9735/3) and extraosseus plasmacytoma (9734/3) are separate primaries. We also checked with our expert pathologist who concurs as the spinal lesion was not reviewed to prove that it is plasmablastic lymphoma, therefore, the diagnosis as per pathology remains plasmacytoma.
","2020" "20200004","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How are Primary Site and EOD Primary Tumor coded when a patient is diagnosed with four invasive tumors in the right lung that represent three separate primaries, but the not otherwise specified (NOS) tumor and one of the specific subtype/variants are in separate lobes? See Discussion.
","There are four invasive tumors in the right lung:
Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma in the right lower lobe (8012/3, C343);
Adenocarcinoma, acinar-predominant in the right lower lobe (8551/3, C343) that was 0.7 cm in size and limited to the lung;
Mucinous adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe (8253/3, C341) that was 0.9 cm and limited to the lung;
Adenocarcinoma, NOS also in the right upper lobe (8140/3, C341) that was 1 cm and limited to the lung.
The Lung M Rules confirm the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma is a separate primary from the three adenocarcinoma tumors (Rule M8). The acinar adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma tumors are separate primaries (Rule M6). The adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor is the same primary as both the acinar and mucinous are adenocarcinomas (Rule M7).
How is Primary Site coded for both the acinar and mucinous adenocarcinomas if they represent multiple tumors reported as a single primary (when compared to the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor)?
Should the adenocarcinoma, NOS tumor also be included when coding EOD Primary Tumor for both the right lower lobe acinar adenocarcinoma and right upper lobe mucinous adenocarcinoma primaries? Further follow-up with the physician is not possible.
","Abstract three primaries using 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M6 and M8 as these are multiple synchronous tumors.
M6 (Subtypes in Column 3 of Table 3):
Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant:
Primary Site: C343 (RLL)
EOD Primary Tumor: 300
Mucinous adenocarcinoma
Primary Site: C341 (RUL)
EOD Primary Tumor: 300
M8 (Separate rows in Table 3):
Large cell undifferentiated carcinoma:
Primary Site: C343 (RLL)
EOD Primary Tumor: 300
Note: The adenocarcinoma, NOS, along with the other subtypes, is on a different row than the large cell undifferentiated carcinoma and is already accounted for in Rule 6 as multiple synchronous tumors.
Do not include the adenocarcinoma, NOS in EOD Primary Tumor for the reportable primaries.
","2020" "20200003","Histology--Penis: What is the histology code of a glans penis primary with the final diagnosis squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type? See Discussion.
","Penile mass excision shows final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type. Subsequent partial penectomy has a final diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type and the summary cancer data lists
Both the final diagnosis and summary cancer data indicate a histology code of 8051/3 (squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type / verrucous carcinoma). However, this site and histology combination triggers edit IFN4911. Edit documentation indicates that for sites C600-C609 (all penile sites) use histology code 8051 and do not use 8054.
Review of the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table does not indicate these terms are synonymous.
","Code squamous cell carcinoma, verrucous type of the penis as verrucous carcinoma (8051/3). In WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, tumors of the penis, verrucous carcinoma is described as an extremely differentiated keratinizing papillomatous and acanthotic neoplasm; it accounts for 2-3% of penile squamous cell carcinomas.
The coding of condylomatous carcinoma and warty carcinoma changed from 8051/3 to 8054/3 in 2018 for penile sites only in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18.
Override the edit until the edit issue is explored.
","2020" "20200002","Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable.
","","PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list.
","2020" "20190108","Primary site--Breast: how is subsite coded for a breast cancer when it is described as central portion between 1-3:00 or central portion at 12:00?
","","See the SEER coding guidelines for breast, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/AppendixC/Coding_Guidelines_Breast_2018.pdf Generally, codes C502 - C505 are preferred over C501. C501 would be preferred over C508. Apply these general guidelines when there is no other way to determine the subsite using the available medical documentation.
Table 1, Primary Site codes, in the breast solid tumor rules also provide helpful information for coding site.
","2019" "20190107","First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy--Colon: Is maintenance therapy coded as part of the first course of treatment or as part of subsequent course of treatment?
","Patient was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer (liver metstasiss) and started on Folfox with Avastin. The medical oncologist decided to continue maintenance treatment with Xeloda and Avastin.
Per Colon NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019, interest in the use of maintenance therapy approach after first-line treatment of unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer is growing. In general, this approach involves intensive first-line therapy, followed by less intensive therapy until progression in patients with good response to initial treatment.
Colon Therapy
5/1/18 Colonoscopy biopsy: mod diff colon adenoca, MMR proficient, BRAF wild type
5/5/18 Liver biopsy: mets from colon cancer
6/18/18 "" 11/20/2018 Med Onc: started 12 cycles Chemo - Folfox (Fluorouracil, leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) with Avastin
11/28/18 CT Pelvis: continued improvement in the liver mets; no residual tumor involving colon; no new mas or adenopathy in the chest, abdomen or pelvis
12/02/18 Med Onc follow up: Pt had tremendous response to chemotherapy and Avastin, cancer is not curable. Is amenable to maintenance therapy with Xeloda and Avastin; also amenable to descending colectomy in the future
1/7/19 Med Onc: starting maintenance treatment Xeloda + Avastin.
","Code the maintenance therapy as first course when the maintenance therapy includes at least one of the drugs from the original treatment. Use text fields to record the details.
","2019" "20190106","Tumor Size--Esophagus: Can information from the endoscopy procedure that implies a size of 3 cm for Tumor Size--Clinical be used for Esophagus? See Discussion.
","1-28-2018 CT Scan: 2.4 cm mass
2-15-2018 Endoscopy: Mass was present 22 to 25 cm. Biopsies were taken with cold forceps for histology; biopsy positive.
","For the case you describe, we would record the clinical tumor size stated on the CT report.
The priority order for clinical tumor size is as follows.
1. Biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report
2. Imaging
3. Physical exam
We do not recommend coding tumor size based on an inferred tumor size from a description such as ""Mass was present 22 to 25 cm."" Look for an actual measurement of the mass, or a stated tumor size. Use text fields to record details.
","2019" "20190105","Histology--Brain and CNS: What morphology code should be assigned to a low-grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm? See Discussion.
","Pathology Diagnosis: Left temporal lesion - Low grade glial/glioneuronal neoplasm BRAF mutant. Pathologist Comment: The histopathological appearance of this lesion does not allow for a definitive diagnosis. However, the low-grade appearance, fibrillary nature, immunohistochemical profile, and the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation allow this to be categorized as a low-grade glial or possibly glioneuronal tumor. Despite the lack of exact classification this neoplasm can be expected to behave in a very indolent manner consistent with a WHO grade I classification.
","Assign 9413/0 for glioneuronal neoplasm.
We consulted with our expert neuropathologist about the histology ""glioneuronal neoplasm."" This term is relatively new and has not yet been recognized by WHO or assigned an ICD-O code. Until such time that WHO determines a code for this neoplasm, our expert instructed us to use 9413/0. Since this is not a recognized neoplasm it is not included in the solid tumor rules.
","2019" "20190104","Histology--Corpus uteri: Is 8020/3 used for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion.
","After a little research, it appears as though Endometrial Dedifferentiated carcinoma is a relatively new term and is set to be included in ICD-O-3.2:
http://www.iacr.com.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=100&Itemid=577
If you look at the link on that page for All Additions, Changes, and Revisions to the ICD-O-3, 1st Revision for ICDO-3.2, there is 8020/3 Dedifferentiated carcinoma. Currently, 8020/3 is Carcinoma, undifferentiated, NOS. For 2018 diagnosis, would you use 8020/3 for a predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma as stated in the pathology: Uterus, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes; supracervical hysterectomy/BSO: Predominantly dedifferentiated carcinoma with focal well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma in the endometrium, FIGO grade 1 Portion of omentum, omental/anterior abdominal wall/ round ligament/uterine/small bowel mesenteric tumor nodules all involved by dedifferentiated carcinoma. Synoptic reads as follows: Histological Type: Endometrioid carcinoma, NOS Dedifferentiated carcinoma predominantly Histological Grade: Endometrioid carcinoma, FIGO grade 1.
","Assign code 8380/3 for endometrioid carcinoma, NOS as this is listed as the histological type in the synoptic report.
","2019" "20190103","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: What M rule applies to a clinically diagnosed right-sided parietal meningioma undergoing active surveillance, followed by a left-sided frontal anaplastic oligodendroglioma? See Discussion.
","The patient has two, separate, non-contiguous tumors. One tumor is a benign meningioma and the other is a malignant oligodendroglioma.
The original plan was not to treat the asymptomatic meningioma. However, after worsening symptoms, imaging and resection proved a separate left frontal lobe malignant tumor.
Rule M5 is the only M Rule in the Malignant CNS Multiple Primary Rules, Multiple Tumors module that addresses separate non-malignant and malignant tumors. This rule provides only two criteria to follow when a malignant tumor follows a non-malignant tumor. The first criteria (for non-malignant tumor followed by malignant tumor) states:
--Patient had a resection of the non-malignant tumor (not the same tumor) OR
--It is unknown/not documented if the patient had a resection.
This patient did not have a resection of the original, separate, non-malignant tumor, but the treatment plan was known to not include a resection. Should Rule M5 also apply to cases where the patient never had treatment planned for the separate non-malignant tumor?
","Apply 2018 Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rule M5 and abstract multiple primaries when there are multiple CNS tumors, one of which is malignant /3 and the other is non-malignant /0 or /1. According to Note 3, a non-malignant CNS tumor and a malignant CNS tumor are always multiple primaries (timing and primary sites are irrelevant). Prepare two abstracts; one for the non-malignant and another for the malignant tumor.
","2019" "20190102","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code of an external ear lesion when the dermatopathology report is the only available information (follow-up with the physician or pathologist is not possible) and the final diagnosis is malignant spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma? See Discussion.
","There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology.
The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3).
Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost.
","By definition, atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a diagnosis of exclusion. Markers of specific differentiation must be negative. As written in your example, neither histology is reportable for skin. If possible, clarify the behavior of the AFX (8830/1) with the pathologist to determine reportability of the case.
","2019" "20190098","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are there and how is histology coded for a breast primary showing encapsulated papillary carcinoma and Paget disease of the nipple? See Discussion.
","Patient has a 1.7 cm encapsulated papillary carcinoma staged as pTis located 2 cm from the nipple and Paget disease of the nipple on mastectomy pathology.
There is no indication in Table 3: Specific Histologies, NOS/NST, and Subtypes/Variants that encapsulated papillary carcinoma is a subtype of ductal carcinoma. Rule M8 notes that if the histology of the underlying tumor is any histology OTHER THAN duct or subtypes of duct, one should continue through the rules. But if M9 applies to this case, then incidence reporting will be increased in comparison to prior years.
","Abstract multiple primaries when there is Paget disease (8540/3) and an underlying tumor that is not duct, in this case, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (8504/2) using Rule M9 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules.
","2019" "20190097","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are there and what M rules apply for multiple lung histologies in the left lower lobe (LLL) and right upper lobe (RUL) of the lungs? See Discussion.
","There is one tumor in the left lung that is acinar adenocarcinoma, 8551/3, and two tumors in the right lung, one of which is 8551/3 and a separate one that is mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3.
3/21/18- left robotic video assisted thoracoscopy with left lower lobe lobectomy: 2.5 cm adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, margins negative
11/3/18- right upper lobe lobectomy: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, 1.7 cm, invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant, 0.6 cm, margins negative
If you start by comparing the 8551/3 left lung tumor to the 8253/3 right lung tumor, M6 applies and these would be separate primaries (seq 01 and seq 02). How would we handle the third tumor, 8551/3, in the right lung? Seq 01: 3/21/18- left lung primary 8551/3 Seq 02: 11/3/18- right lung primary 8253/3 Is the right lung tumor 8551/3 a third primary, and if so, which M rule applies? I cannot find a rule that seems to fit completely. Rule M6 may apply if you were comparing the right 8551/3 tumor to the seq 02 8253/3 tumor. But how would you know to use the seq 02 histology code 8253/3 or seq 01 histology code 8551/3 for the comparison? I think M9 was designed for situations where you have multiple tumors involving both lungs but they didn't biopsy all of them. Is that correct? If so, then we would be able to bypass M9. Would M11 apply since we already took care of two of the tumors with rule M6? If M11 doesn't apply, it seems like you would get to M14.
","Abstract two primaries applying Rules M6 and M9 s follows.
First, assign a histology for each tumor.
--LLL adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3
--RUL invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253/3
--RUL invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant 8551/3
For the RUL, this is two primaries according to Rule M6, to subtypes in Column 3 of the histology table.
For the LLL and RUL, this represents the same primary as these are the same histology according to Rule M9.
","2019" "20190096","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Colon: Is a colorectal anastomotic site recurrence reportable, that is, a second primary, per Rule M7, third bullet, if there is no mention of mucosa but the tumor is seen on colonoscopy? See Discussion.
","Colon, Rectosigmoid, and Rectum Multiple Primary Rule M7 states, Abstract multiple primaries when a subsequent tumor arises at the anastomotic site AND the subsequent tumor arises in the mucosa.
We identified tumors at the anastomotic site of previous colon primaries with no mention of mucosa in any of the available documentation. Are there any other indicators that would imply a tumor arising in the mucosa, or do we need this specific statement to apply rule M7?
Example: Patient has a history of invasive ascending colon adenocarcinoma diagnosed in October 2017 status post hemicolectomy followed by adjuvant chemo. There is no documentation of disease until August 2019 colonoscopy which shows a mass in the ileocolic anastomosis. Biopsy of the anastomotic site is positive for adenocarcinoma consistent with recurrence of the patient's colonic adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of mucosa found on the pathology report.
","Abstract a single primary using 2018 Colon Solid Tumor Rule M8 in the example provided as there is a subsequent tumor occurring less than 24 months in the anastomotic site, with the same histology and no mention of mucosa.
The new tumor would be a new primary when it meets any one of the criteria noted in M7. The tumor does not have to be stated to have arisen in the mucosa. M8 also has three options to determine if a single primary is present.
","2019" "20190095","Reportability/Histology--Thymus: Is a thymoma a malignancy if described as having separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue? See Discussion.
","Patient had a thymectomy including pericardial fat for a mediastinal mass found incidentally during lung screening. Final diagnosis is WHO B3 thymoma. Staging Summary lists transcapsular invasion: ""Present, as separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue."" Tumor extension is stated to be ""Confined to thymus, including peri-thymic adipose tissue."" The pathologist staged this resection as pT1a pNX with no mention of mets. Clinically, there are no noted metastatic sites and no further treatment is planned.
","Report this case as a malignant thymoma. Our expert pathologist consultant reviewed this case and in his opinion, the ""separate tumor nodules within peri-thymic adipose tissue"" fit registry reporting criteria for separate tumor nodules making this a malignant thymoma.
","2019" "20190094","Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Skin: Is elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) reportable as a lymphoma? See Discussion.
","The autopsy report indicated a diagnosis of: Skin: Hyperkeratosis and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia as well as reactive angioendotheliomatosis indicating Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa.
","Elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV) is not reportable. ENV is a rare form of chronic lymphedema caused by any number of conditions including neoplasms, trauma, radiation treatment, congestive heart failure, obesity, hypothyroidism, chronic venous stasis, and parasitic infection.
","2019" "20190092","First course Treatment/Lymph Nodes: When a Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) biopsy ONLY is performed and SLNs are negative, are the SLNs included still counted in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive, or are the fields filled in: RLN Examined: 00 (No nodes examined) RLN Positive: 98 (No nodes examined) Date RLN Dissection: 00/00/0000 (No RLN dissection performed) or are the SLN included in the RLN Examined/Positive field but the Date RLN Dissection is 00/00/0000? See Discussion.
","According to the 2018 SEER Manual, Sentinel Lymph Nodes (SLNs) Examined and SLNs Positive are included in Regional Nodes (RNs) Examined and RNs Positive when both a sentinel node biopsy procedure and a subsequent dissection procedure are performed or a sentinel node biopsy procedure is performed during the same procedure as the regional node dissection.
","If a SLN biopsy is performed but no RLN dissection is performed, assign as follows.
Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection: Leave blank as this field records the date non-sentinel regional node dissection was performed.
Date of Regional Lymph Node Dissection Flag: Assign code 11 (Not applicable: No proper value is applicable in this context (for example, no regional lymph node dissection was performed; autopsy only cases).
Regional Nodes Examined: Indicate the number of SLNs examined as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.
Regional Nodes Positive: Indicate the number of SLNs positive as this is cumulative from all procedures that remove lymph nodes through the completion of surgeries in the first course of treatment.
","2019" "20190090","Update to current manual/Extent of Disease/Summary Stage 2018--Fallopian Tube: How are behavior, EOD Primary Tumor, and Summary Stage 2018 coded for a diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) of the fallopian tube? See Discussion.
","The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Updates table lists serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (C57.0) with a behavior code of 2.
The EOD Primary Tumor schema for Fallopian Tube shows STIC has an extension code of 100. It also maps code 100 to Summary Stage 2018 L (localized).
Summary Stage 2018 for fallopian tube only documents that intraepithelial tumors are summary stage 0 (in situ).
","We are aware of the issue and have been in discussion with standard setters (SEER, NPCR, AJCC, and NAACCR). At this time, we recommend coding:
Histology: 8441/2
Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor: 000
Summary Stage: 0
AJCC Clin/Path T would be 88, since all in situ lesions are not applicable.
Edits will not allow you to have a 8441/2 with a T1. Also, EOD is not currently set up to derive the correct T value, unless you code 100.
The change to address the issue will take effect in 2021.
","2019" "20190089","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Rule H3 of the Solid Tumor Rules was added to capture non-small cell carcinoma modified by ambiguous terminology when the physician confirms the ambiguous term as the histologic diagnosis, also included in Coding Histology instruction 3.B. If differentiation and features are not included in the histology term, does instruction 2 takes precedence? See Discussion.
","For example, pathologic diagnosis is non-small cell carcinoma with squamous features. The medical oncologist describes this as squamous cell carcinoma and begins treatment regimen. As I interpret the rules, we would use code 8046, non-small cell carcinoma, because of instruction 2 and the fact that features is not included in the list of ambiguous terminology.
","Code 8046 using Coding Instruction 2 that says to: Code the histology described as differentiation or features/features of ONLY when there is a specific ICD-O code for the ""NOS with ____ features"" or ""NOS with ____ differentiation.""
Note: Do not code differentiation or features when there is no specific ICD-O code.
In the example, no ambiguous terminology is used. If ambiguous terminology is used indicating a more specific term, you would code to the specific histology.
","2019" "20190088","Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Breast: When bilateral nipple/skin sparing mastectomies are performed for a single primary confined to one breast, we should code 30 for surgery and 0 for Surgery of Other Site or follow the CAnswer Forum and code 1 in Surgery of Other Site? See Discussion.
","Registrars are confused because the STORE manual dropped ""involved"" from the description of contralateral breast removal in the Appendix B surgical codes. In April, 2019, CAnswer Forum instructed registrars to code both the surgery with uninvolved breast to the proper code, plus code Surgery of Other Site to 1. In October, they stepped back and instructed registrars not to code Surgery of Other Site to 1 if a code for uninvolved breast removal is included in the breast surgery code. However, they insist that if the surgery code is 30, subcutaneous mastectomy, and the uninvolved contralateral breast is also removed, then continue to code Surgery of Other Site to 1. This contradicts the specific instructions for Surgery of Other Sites.
","For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294), this is, code 1, according to the 2018 SEER Manual:
Assign code 1
When the involved contralateral breast is removed for a single primary breast cancer
This would also apply when Surgery of the Primary Site code is 30 (subcutaneous mastectomy) for breast. If uninvolved, assign code 0 to Surgical Procedure of Other Site
SEER registries should follow the instructions according to the SEER Manual.
","2019" "20190086","EOD 2018/Primary tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise.
* Code 000: In situ
* Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)
* Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
* Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
","","Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level)
Code 000: Level I (In situ)
Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)
Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
Code 300: Level IV (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
","2019" "20190085","Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion.
","Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?
The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.
However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.
","The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites.
Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site.
","2019" "20190084","Histology/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the histology be coded to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), BCR-ABL1-positive (9875/3) regardless of the quantitative analysis percentage of BCR-ABL1 that was detected? See Discussion.
","Example: Bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic phase, and the RT-PCR test result proved, BCR-ABL1 p210 (Major Breakpoint) - Detected, 3.3659%.
Even though the p210 fusion transcript was less than 5%, it was detected. The presence of BCR-ABL1 does define whether or not patients are treated with tyrosine kinase therapies. Therefore, it seems likely that the presence of any BCR-ABL1 would be captured using the more specific histology code 9875/3, instead of the non-specific CML, NOS histology code 9863/3.
Are there minimum threshold requirements for these quantitative studies in order to code the histology to the more specific type of CML?
","Code chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) BCR-ABL1-positive as 9875/3.
According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th edition, CML BCR-ABL1-positive is characterized by the chromosomal translocation t(9;22) which results in the formation of the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome containing the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. The diagnosis requires detection of the Ph chromosome and/or BCR-ABL1. If the mutation is detected, regardless of percentage, it is positive. Quantitative levels of BCR-ABL are used to monitor response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.
","2019" "20190083","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries should be reported when metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate is diagnosed at the same time as adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.
","Patient has biopsy of prostate 12/28/2018 showing Gleason 5+5 adenocarcinoma. Liver biopsy on same date is metastatic small cell carcinoma consistent with prostate primary. Oncology consult states that liver biopsy is likely neuroendocrine conversion from prostate carcinoma. Patient also has bone metastasis and receives radiation, Lupron, Casodex, and chemotherapy of carboplatin and etopiside.
Per Solid Tumor Rules, we code histology from primary site over a metastatic site. Thus, the small cell carcinoma, which appears to be the focus of the chemotherapy is lost. Is it correct to code this as a single primary with an adenocarcinoma histology?
Both SINQ 20130221 and 20180088 instruct us to abstract multiple primaries when patient develops a metastatic small cell carcinoma of the prostate after being previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate.
","Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619] and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] per Rule M17 of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules 2018, as these are different histologies with different histology codes at the second number.
Adenocarcinoma of prostate often manifests as a small cell carcinoma following treatment or as a progression of disease. It is important to capture these tumors as new primaries.
","2019" "20190082","Primary site/Histology--Peritoneum: What is the correct primary site code for peritoneal mesothelioma in a female? When I use C482, it seems that the fields are all geared towards primary peritoneal carcinoma with FIGO staging, etc.
","","For mesothelioma, NOS (9050) and epithelioid mesothelioma (9052) of the peritoneum for females, assign C481, C482, or C488 as appropriate based on the site of origin in the medical documentation. The Primary Peritoneal Ca schema is assigned and you will need to complete the SSDIs for FIGO staging, CA-125 PreTx Interpretation, and Residual Tumor Volume Post Cytoreduction.
If the histology is 9051 or 9053 with primary site of C481, C482, or C488 for females, the Retroperitoneum schema is assigned. The only SSDI for this schema is Bone Invasion.
","2019" "20190081","Race: How is race coded for a patient who self-reports as white? In the Family History portion of the genetics consult, it states the maternal family is of mixed European and Cherokee descent; the paternal side is of mixed German/mixed European descent. Is race coded as Race 1: 03-American Indian and Race 2: 01-White, or as 01-White according to self-report by the patient?
","","Self-reported information is the highest priority for coding race. That is because the race information for the U.S. population comes from census data and that information is self-reported. For national cancer statistics, in order for the numerator (cancer cases) and the denominator (population) to be comparable, use self-reported race information whenever it is available. We will add this clarification to the SEER manual.
","2019" "20190080","Update to current manual/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes--Melanoma: Can the operative report be used to assess margins if there is no residual melanoma on the wide excision and no margins stated, or if distance is not stated on the pathology report when there is residual melanoma? See Discussion.
","1) Is the operative report only used for margins when the wide excision states no residual disease and no margins are stated on path report? Or do you use the operative report too for margins when the wide excision has residual melanoma and margins are negative but distance is not stated on path report? Does it matter if there was residual melanoma on the wide excision or not as far as using the operative report for margins?
2) Do these rules only apply to melanoma cases or do they also apply to Merkel cell?
3) Did CoC and SEER both agree on this? Are they going to send out an update because this is not how I interpret what is in the STORE manual/SEER manual under the surgery codes. It might be good to send out an official update to the surgical coding rules if this is how we are to code now.
","1. You may take margin information from the operative report if it is missing from the pathology report when assigning the surgery codes for skin.
2. The rule applies to any skin malignancy for which the skin surgery codes apply.
3. SEER, CoC, NPCR, NCRA, NAACCR, and the Canadian registries participated in this decision. SEER is publishing this SINQ question for reference.
","2019" "20190079","Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: Is mucinous cystic neoplasm of pancreas reportable?
","","Non-invasive mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas with low or intermediate grade dysplasia is NOT reportable.
Non-invasive mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia is reportable. For neoplasms of the pancreas, the term MCN with high grade dysplasia replaces the term mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, non-invasive.
","2019" "20190077","Summary Stage 2018/EOD 2018: How should SEER Summary Stage 2018 be coded for a 2018 thymus primary which has mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement? See Discussion.
","The Extent of Disease (EOD) manual states that ""Confined to thymus WITH mediastinal or pleural involvement"" should be coded as regional by direct extension. I have EOD primary tumor coded as 200 and based on SEER*RSA, this is localized.
","Code 200 derives Regional Extension (RE) for Summary Stage; however, based on the information you provided, thymus primary with mediastinal fat invasion without mediastinal pleural involvement, EOD Primary Tumor would be coded to 100: Confined to thymus (encapsulated tumor), which includes extension into the mediastinal fat; No mediastinal or pleura involvement. This derives ""Localized"" for Summary Stage. Per AJCC T1, extension into the mediastinal fat is separate from involvement of the mediastinal pleura.
For Summary Stage 2018, this would be code 1, Localized only (localized, NOS): Confined to thymus, NOS; No mediastinal or pleura involvement or UNKNOWN if involved.
We will note that ""extension into the mediastinal fat"" is included in code 100 for the next release (September 2020).
","2019" "20190076","Primary Site/Brain and CNS: How is primary site coded when the ICD-O-3 provides a sub-site-associated morphology code and the only information available to code primary site for a particular diagnosis indicates a non-specific/not otherwise specified (NOS) site code? See Discussion.
","ICD-O-3 Rule H states to use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not stated in the diagnosis. This topography code should be ignored if the tumor arose in another site. For the following brain and central nervous system (CNS) examples, should the suggested sub-site codes be assigned based on the histology, or should the primary sites be coded as C719 (posterior fossa or suprasellar brain) since the only information available was a tumor in these non-specific sites?
Example 1: Resection of a posterior fossa tumor proved medulloblastoma, WNT-activated. Although medulloblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C716, cerebellum), the only information available is that this was a posterior fossa tumor (C719).
Example 2: Resection of a suprasellar brain tumor proved pineoblastoma. The pathologist labeled this as a brain tumor, suprasellar. Although pineoblastoma has a site-associated code in the ICD-O-3 (C753, pineal gland), the only information available is that this was a suprasellar brain tumor (C719).
","If possilbe, ask the physician(s) about the exact site of origin.
If it is not possible to obtain more information, the information in the medical documentation takes priority over ICD-O-3 Rule H, even when that results in a less specific topography code.
","2019" "20190075","Sex: How should the sex field be coded for the newly allowable non-binary gender designation ? See Discussion.
","Washington State added to birth certificates, which allows people to have their certificates changed to this non-binary gender designation. Gender X is defined as a gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to: intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified.
","Code Gender X as 9 when that is the only information available. Use text fields to document the details.
Also refer to coding instruction #7.
When gender is not known
Assign code 1 when the primary site is C600 'C639
Assign code 2 when the primary site is C510 'C589
Assign code 9 for primary sites not included above
","2019" "20190074","First course treatment/Scope of Reg LN Surgery--Breast: How is Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery coded when there is a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) and intra-mammary nodes removed for a single primary? See Discussion.
","Example: Operative report documents a left breast skin sparing mastectomy and sentinel node biopsy procedure. Pathology report lists left axillary sentinel nodes in specimen A) with 0/2 nodes positive, and left breast mastectomy without axilla in specimen B) yielding an additional 0/2 intramammary nodes positive. Would the Scope of Regional Node Surgery be coded as 2 (SLN biopsy) to capture the intent of the sentinel node procedure only, or 6 (code 2 + 4) to capture the actual type and number of nodes removed?
SEER Coding and Staging Manual includes Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery instruction 4.b. which mentions assigning code 4 to intra-organ node removal. Similarly, there is instruction for coding SLN biopsy as code 2 and SLN biopsy with axillary dissection at the same time (code 6) or during separate procedures (code 7). However, it is not clear this combination code is how we should also capture an incidental intra-organ node removal.
","Revised answer 07/11/2023
Assign code 6, Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at same time or timing not noted. There were two sentinel lymph nodes removed (code 2) plus two intramammary nodes removed in a separate specimen from the mastectomy (code 4). Assign code 6 when nodes are removed from a sentinel lymph node procedure at the same time as removal of intra-organ lymph nodes which were not part of the sentinel lymph node procedure.
","2019" "20190073","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported for a patient with a March 2018 diagnosis of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation on lung biopsy (single left upper lobe tumor only) who also has a prior history of left lung squamous cell carcinoma in 2016 (treated with chemotherapy/radiation)? See Discussion.
","The Solid Tumor Rules instruct us not to use differentiation for coding histology unless it is specifically listed in the table. The terminology non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation is not in lung histology Table 2.
However, SINQ 20150033, prior to Solid Tumor rules, indicates this diagnosis should be coded to 8574 (adenocarcinoma/carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation).
This presentation appears to represent distinctly different histologies. However, because the 2018 histology diagnosis is not in the table and the prior SINQ appears to disagree with current instruction, it is not clear how to apply the M rules to this case. The outcome of the histology coding will affect the number of primaries reported in this case.
","Abstract separate primaries according to the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules. Lung Table 3 is not an exhaustive list of lung histologies and the H rules instruct you to use the tables, ICD-O and/or ICD-O updates. Per ICD-O-3, carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation is coded to 8574/3; whereas, squamous cell carcinoma is coded to 8070/3. These represent distinct histologies on different rows in Table 3.
","2019" "20190072","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for minimally invasive adenocarcinoma in the lung, 8140/3 or 8256/3? See Discussion.
","For example, 9/12/18 left lung upper lobe lobectomy: 1.5 cm, 0.8 cm invasive component, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma with acinar and lepidic patterns, G2, no visceral pleural invasion, no LVI, 0/14 LNS positive. An additional minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, 1 mm, was seen away from the main tumor. The correct coding of the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma will ultimately determine if we have one tumor (using rule M7) versus two primaries (using rule M6).
","Updated answer: Code minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, NOS as 8140/3. This is a new term and code in the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms-Updated 8/22/18 list. See Solid Tumor Lung Table 3, and Solid Tumor Lung rules H1 and H10.
","2019" "20190071","First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: Please provide the correct surgery code for a laparoscopic transanal abdominal transanal (TATA) procedure with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. See Discussion.
","IMPRESSION/PLAN: Patient is a previously healthy middle aged woman with a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). We will proceed with a neoadjuvant course of radiation and concurrent chemotherapy (5-FU) to maximize local regional control and survival, and hopefully facilitate a sphincter-sparing resection in the future. The primary tumor and the pelvic nodes at risk will receive 4500 cGy delivered over 25 treatments. The primary tumor will subsequently receive an additional 1080 cGy delivered over 5 treatments, for a cumulative dose of 580 cGy.
PATHOLOGY: Adenocarcinoma of the rectum, clinical stage II (T3N0M0). The patient is referred by (dr) for a neoadjuvant course of chemoradiotherapy.
HPI: Patient presented recently with rectal bleeding and a change in bowel habits. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated mass located 4.0 cm above the anal verge. A biopsy was positive for invasive well-differentiated adenocarcinoma that arose from a tubular adenoma. A staging work-up demonstrated no evidence of metastatic disease.
","Code Surgery of Primary Site as 40, Pull through WITH sphincter preservation (colo-anal anastomosis). The TATA procedure is described as transanal abdominal transanal proctosigmoidectomy with coloanal anastomosis.
We are assuming the BSO was not releated to treatment of the rectal cancer. Do not code it. You may document it in a text field.
","2019" "20190070","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a when the pathologist notes the low grade B-cell lymphoma raises the possibilities of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa associated tissue (MALT lymphoma) and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL)? See Discussion.
","Rule PH28 confirms the more specific histologies are ignored if this is truly a low grade B-cell lymphoma (i.e., non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS) since both MALT lymphoma and LPL are more specific types of low grade B-cell lymphomas. This leaves only a diagnosis of low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation to consider.
SINQ 20130033 states a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation should be coded as 9680/3 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)). However, DLBCL is a high grade B-cell lymphoma, not a low grade B-cell lymphoma.
If the pathologist classifies this as a non-specific low grade B-cell lymphoma, and clarifies that this may represent a more specific type of low grade B-cell lymphoma (MALT lymphoma or LPL), should the histology be coded to a high-grade lymphoma (DLBCL) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS?
","Code low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation as 9591/3 (Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS). Plasmacytic differentiation is commonly seen with B-cell neoplasms. If further information identifies a more specific histology, the abstract can be updated to reflect the more specific histology.
In the latest WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues, 4th ed., there is confirmation that DLBCL is a high grade B-cell neoplasm. We will update the SINQ question.
","2019" "20190068","First course treatment/Scope of Reg LN Surgery--Breast: How is Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery coded when the operative report does not agree with the actual number and type of nodes removed? Are we attempting to capture the intended surgery or the type and number of nodes removed? See Discussion.
","Example 1: Operative report states the surgery is a right breast simple mastectomy. There is no lymph node removal documented or attempted; however, a single incidental intramammary node is found in the final pathology results. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?
CAnswer Forum states to code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery as 0 (No regional lymph nodes removed), see Scope LN surgery, incidental LN found on path, Breast.
However, SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction states: Code the removal of intra-organ lymph nodes in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery. Example: Local excision of breast cancer. Specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node. Assign code 4 (1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed).
The STORE 2018 Manual does not provide instruction for incidental nodes specifically, but does appear to be focused on capturing procedural intent.
Example 2: Patient has bilateral breast primaries. Operative report states the surgery is bilateral simple/skin-sparing mastectomies with bilateral sentinel node biopsies and immediate reconstruction. However, pathology shows that the left breast specimens are labeled: (a) Left breast mastectomy, (b) Left sentinel lymph node biopsy, (c) Additional left lymph nodes biopsy, and (d) Left axillary contents biopsy. The total nodes removed for this case are: 2/2 positive SLN, 0/1 positive intramammary nodes, 1/1 positive additional lymph node, and 3/3 positive axillary contents nodes. How should these nodes be captured in the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field?
","Assign the best code in Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to capture the type and number of nodes removed.
Example 1: Code 4; 1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed. There is no statement of the procedure being a SLNBx or dissection in the operative report; the pathology report identified one incidental regional lymph node. Coding instruction #4 example says to assign code 4 if there is a local excision of breast cancer and specimen includes an intra-mammary lymph node.
Example 2: Code 6, Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at same time or timing not noted. The operative report describes sentinel node biopsies only and does not mention axillary lymph node dissection; however, the pathology report details other lymph nodes in addition to the SLNBx. In addition to the LSLNbx and left LN bx, the pathology report describes ""Left axillary contents biopsy"" and a total of seven lymph nodes removed.
","2019" "20190067","Reportability/Histology--Breast: Is a breast mastectomy showing mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for Paget disease of the nipple a reportable malignancy? See Discussion.
","Example: Left breast total mastectomy final diagnosis is incidental microscopic findings suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. The diagnosis comment states: The left breast mastectomy shows mildly atypical cells within the nipple epidermis which are suspicious for early Paget disease of the nipple. Additional sampling of the left breast was performed, and no evidence of atypical hyperplasia, in situ carcinoma, or invasive carcinoma within the left breast tissue was identified.
Would this case be non-reportable using rationale similar to an early/evolving melanoma per SINQ 20180029?
","Code as 8540/3, Paget disease, based on the use of reportable ambiguous terminology (suspicious) listed in the 2018 SEER Coding Manual. In addition, Rule H8 of the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules says to code Paget disease (8540/3) when the diagnosis is exactly Paget disease when a new tumor with no underlying tumor and the pathology documents invasive or unknown behavior.
When two ambiguous terms are used and one is on the reportable list (suspicious) and one is not (early), accept the reportable term and report the case. See #1.b.ii on page 12 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_maindoc.pdf
","2019" "20190066","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded for a metastatic carcinoma, consistent with primary breast carcinoma, when no other pathology information is available? See Discussion.
","The 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules Equivalent Terms and Definitions - Changes from 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules states: Mammary carcinoma is a synonym for carcinoma no special type (NST)/duct carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) 8500. It will no longer be coded as carcinoma NOS 8010. Should metastatic carcinomas of breast origin be 8500, or is code 8010 (carcinoma NOS) more applicable because histology coding from metastatic sites is not as reliable?
","Code as 8500/3 as it is the only tissue available for this carcinoma associated with a breast primary. Breast carcinoma NST/NOS is now coded as 8500.
","2019" "20190065","Update to current manual/EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--CLL/SLL: Can chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) be staged when diagnosed by peripheral blood and no bone marrow biopsy, and observation is employed? See Discussion.
","The physicians do not use the Lugano system as we are instructed to stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) as lymphomas. I had always been instructed that this qualifies as ""bone marrow involvement,"" or ""diffuse disease,"" and therefore is a Stage IV. Our experts advise that there is not enough information to code it to bone marrow, but do not elaborate as to whether you can actually code Extent of Disease (EOD), SEER Summary Stage, and AJCC Staging?
","For EOD and Summary Stage: Peripheral blood involvement for CLL (or any lymphoma-but most commonly for CLL) can be coded. This is code 800 for 2018 EOD Primary Tumor, and code 7 for Summary Stage 2018. We have recently received confirmation that peripheral blood involvement only is not enough information to assign AJCC stage; assign code 99 for AJCC Stage Group. We will correct in the 2021 release of EOD so that peripheral blood involvement only will have its own code to derive the appropriate AJCC TNM Stage Group (99).
","2019" "20190064","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Patient is diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with an early/evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML) thought to be treatment related. Does rule M11 apply since there are two biopsies within 21 days, and therefore, two primaries, or one primary (9920/3)? See Discussion.
","Patient has a history of breast cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), both treated with chemotherapy and radiation.
On 6/26/19, bone marrow biopsy: MDS with excess blasts-2 (18% dysplastic blasts) in a normocellular marrow (overall 40% cellularity) with trilineage dysplasia. Comment: least myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. However, an early/evolving AML cannot be completely excluded. The findings likely represent therapy-related myeloid neoplasm.
MD note on 7/15/19: Diagnosis: MDS, high grade borderline AML with complex karyotype secondary disease. Patient has high grade MDS which is bordering on AML transformation with 20% blasts by IHC and areas higher than this. This is likely secondary to the treatment she has received for her other cancers particularly pelvic radiation for her DLBCL. Given her very high IPSS score, it is likely she will eventually develop AML. No treatment given.
On 7/15/19, bone marrow biopsy: Persistent acute leukemia in a marrow with trilineage dyspoiesis and 23% blasts.
","Code as one primary (9920/3). This case does not fit the rules very well, since it is a treatment-related neoplasm and involves a transformation of MDS to AML during the clinical workup. Per the abstractor notes for 9920/3, code 9920/3 when the physician comments that the neoplasm is treatment related. This can be for the MDS or the AML. Use text fields to document that it was first referred to as MDS and then transformed to AML. If you followed the rules strictly and coded this as two primaries (the MDS and AML), you would lose the information that this was treatment related, which is more important.
","2019" "20190063","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Sarcoma: How is histology coded for a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma? See Discussion.
","According to the literature, CIC gene rearrangement sarcomas in young patients are soft tissue sarcomas with an aggressive clinical course and may have previously been grouped under the Ewing-like family of tumors or as undifferentiated round cell sarcomas. There is currently no guideline in the solid tumor rules for coding a CIC gene rearrangement sarcoma. However, coding the histology to 8800 (sarcoma, NOS) seems unlikely to capture the more aggressive nature of these tumors. Can a more specific histology be coded?
","Code as undifferentiated round cell sarcoma (8803/3).
The CIC rearrangement exists as a distinct molecular and clinical subset of small round cell tumors, and though similar, is felt to be a distinct entity from Ewing sarcoma. According to WHO Classification of Soft Tissues and Bone, 4th Edition, CID-DUX4 is a recurrent gene fusion associated with pediatric round cell undifferentiated soft tissue sarcoma (USTS). Although the genes involved in the fusion are different from those in Ewing sarcoma, the CIC-DUX4 protein has been shown to upregulate genes of the ETS family of genes thus providing a molecular link between Ewing sarcoma and round cell USTS. In contrast, there are strong arguments to suggest that Ewing-like sarcomas represent a separate and distinct entity.
","2019" "20190062","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain: How is histology coded for a left frontal lobe mass when the final diagnosis is malignant neuroglial tumor and the diagnosis comment describes multiple possible histologies? See Discussion.
","Left frontal mass biopsy diagnosis comment states: Given the synaptophysin and patchy CD34 staining of these cells, the possibility of ganglioglioma and pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma is raised. Astroblastoma and ependymoma were considered given the perivascular pseudorosettes, however GFAP staining is quite limited against these tumors. Reticulin stain shows limited perivascular reticulin staining however. Nevertheless, the necrosis, mitotic activity and elevated mitotic activity would point to a malignant neoplasm. Given the neural and limited GFAP staining, a generic classification of neuroglial is provided.
This is the only available information. Further clarification or discussion with the physician or pathologist is not possible. Therefore, is this diagnosis of neuroglial tumor equivalent to that described in SINQ 20091037?
","Code to 8000/3. Use text fields to record the details.
The WHO Revised 4th Ed CNS Tumors includes a chapter for ""Neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors. This chapter lists 13 histologies in this category. Glioneuronal NOS is not listed. Do not assign 9505 because ambiguous terminology was used AND because of the numerous possible histologies discussed for this diagnosis.
","2019" "20190061","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy of the right breast in 2016 with all treatment refused, followed by a 2019 large right breast mass ulcerating the skin and clinical diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (patient again refused all treatment)? See Discussion.
","The patient was never treated for the 2016 diagnosis, so the 2019 diagnosis is the same tumor that has progressed. Prior SINQ 20091096 for a similar case type cited multiple primaries per the 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules, Rule M8, the same rule as the current Solid Tumor rule M17, because this is to be reported as an incidence case.
However, it seems like Solid Tumor Rule M3 would apply because a single tumor is a single primary, and behavior of the 2016 primary would then be updated from /2 to /3. It is unclear how one would advance to the Multiple Tumors module and apply M17 because there is really only a single tumor in this case.
","Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor.
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states
Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast.
Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply.
Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors.
Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression.
Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual.
","2019" "20190059","Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code and what H Rule applies for a diagnosis of well differentiated adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma)? See Discussion.
","There is no statement of mucinous or non-mucinous in this case, only adenocarcinoma in situ and an obsolete term bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) which used to be code 8250. However 8250 is now lepidic adenocarcinoma, and does not match this diagnosis.
Although the Histology Rules do include a general note indicating that the preferred term for BAC is now mucinous adenocarcinoma 8253, it is not listed as a synonym in Table 3. As a result it is unclear how to apply this statement in accordance with the H rules.
The ICD-O Histology Updates table also includes Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous which seems to suggest that in order to apply histology code 8252 (non-mucinous) or 8253 (mucinous) one must also have a statement of mucinous or non-mucinous.
","Code adenocarcinoma in situ as 8140/2 using the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H4 as this single histology is listed as a synonym for adenocarcinoma (8140) in Table 3 . Bronchiolalveolar carcinoma, a synonym for adenocarcinoma in situ, is an obsolete term according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart, 4th edition; however, some pathologists add in the no longer preferred term to the diagnosis. When stated as non-mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ, code as 8250/2 for lung only (Rule H2) and mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ as 8253/2 (Rule H1).
Note: WHO published a corrected 4th Ed Lung blue book fixing the 8410 error.
","2019" "20190058","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Cervix Uteri: What is the histology code and what H Rule applies for a diagnosis of papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix? See Discussion.
","It appears that the first Other Sites applicable rule is H16 (and Table 2) instructing the use of histology code 8323 (mixed cell adenocarcinoma). However, this really is not an adenocarcinoma tumor but is a mixed squamous and transitional cell carcinoma. The 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update Table provides a new term for a but does not indicate whether that new term would also include a papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the cervix.
","Code papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma (PSCC) as 8120/3 using the 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule H11. PSCC is a distinctive subcategory of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs say that squamotransitional cell tumors show papillary architecture with fibrovascular cores lines by multilayered atypical epithelium.
","2019" "20190057","Reportability/Histology--Penis: Are and (PeIN) equivalent to PeIN3 and thus reportable? See Discussion.
","Appendix E1 of the 2018 SEER manual references a similar diagnosis as being reportable for vulva and vagina only. However, the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs (4th ed) does include high grade penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a synonym for 8077/2.
","Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III (PeIN III) and squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the penis are reportable. If possible, query the physicians as to whether ""high grade penile intraepithelial lesion"" or are synonymous with one of the reportable terms. If no further information can be obtained, report the case as C609 8077/2, and use text fields to document the details.
","2019" "20190056","Behavior--Breast: What is the behavior of a solid papillary carcinoma when a pathologist does not indicate it in the pathology report and follow-up with the pathologist to obtain clarification regarding the behavior is not possible? See Discussion.
","Example: Mastectomy specimen final diagnosis shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma including: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma (tumor #1, 1 cm, slices 6 and 7) and invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type (tumor #2, 1.2 cm, slices 9 and 10).
Summary Staging outlines, Tumor #1: Histologic Type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type, in association with solid papillary carcinoma. As well as, Tumor #2: Histologic type: Invasive ductal carcinoma, no special type. Additional findings include ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): presently approximately 3.3 cm, spanning slices 10-13.
The behavior of the solid papillary carcinoma component will affect the provisional histology of the first tumor (8523/3) per Rule H17 vs. 8500/3 per Rule H7). Based on the response, we can determine whether this represents a single or multiple primaries (single primary per M13 vs. multiple primaries per M14).
","Review all sections of the pathology report carefully for any mention of invasion, or lack of invasion, pertaining to the solid papillary carcinoma.
Per WHO 4th Ed Breast: If there is uncertainty that there is invasion, these lesions should be regarded as in situ. The distinction between in situ and invasive disease in solid papillary carcinoma is difficult.
","2019" "20190054","Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Table 6 (Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions) lists as a subtype/variant of craniopharyngioma 9350/1. This is not a valid histology per the ICD-O-3 or the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update Table. Is this actually supposed to read, ?
","","Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (9351/1) is a subtype of craniopharygioma. We will correct the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules in the next update.
","2019" "20190053","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a central nervous system (CNS) Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration of the right parietal lobe? See Discussion.
","Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) lists Ewing sarcoma as a synonym for Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor 9364. Presumably, this is to be used for the reportable malignant peripheral nerve tumors when diagnosed as pPNET or Ewing sarcoma. However, this patient has a type of central (or CNS) primitive neuroectodermal tumor (histology 9473). Table 3 does not list central primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET or CPNET) as a valid histology for CNS tumors.
While Table 3 does not list all the possible histologies for the CNS, it currently is not clear how one would arrive at the histology code for a CNS Ewing sarcoma family tumor with CIC alteration, as this is recognized as a new entity for primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the CNS (i.e., PNET, histology 9473) per multiple journal articles. Ewing sarcoma family tumors include both peripheral PNET and central PNET tumors, but to code this histology as a peripheral PNET (9364) in this case seems incorrect when the primary tumor is stated to be of central nervous system origin, not peripheral nervous system origin.
","Code as 9364/3. WHO Classification of Tumors of the CNS, 4th edition, refers to Ewing sarcoma/peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor as a tumor of neuroectodermal origin involving the CNS either as a primary dural neoplasm or by direct extension from contiguous bone or soft tissues (such as skull, vertebra, or paraspinal soft tissue).
","2019" "20190052","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right nasal cavity (C300) invasive nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8072/3) in 2015 treated with radiation and excision, followed by a 2019 right nasal cavity (C300) invasive squamous cell carcinoma (NOS, 8070/3)? See Discussion.
","Head and Neck Multiple Primary Rule M8 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table (Tables 1-9) in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Table 1 (tumors of the nasal cavity) shows Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma on different rows making the 2019 case a new primary. Is this correct?
","Abstract two primaries using Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M8 when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in the appropriate site table, in this case, Table 1 Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses.
","2019" "20190051","Update to current manual/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code and what M Rule applies when there are multiple specific subtypes identified using various equivalent lung terms but only one is stated to be predominant? See Discussion.
","Example: Lung resection final diagnosis is Lung adenocarcinoma, see Summary Cancer Data, and the Summary Cancer Data (CAP Synoptic Report) states Histologic type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant. Other Subtypes Present: 20% acinar and <5% micropapillary components.
Instruction 1B and Note 1 for Coding Multiple Histologies (Lung Histology Rules) indicates type, subtype, component, and predominantly are all terms that may be used to code the most specific histology. In this case, the multiple specific histologies were documented using all of those terms.
Note 2 for instruction 1B states predominantly describes the greatest amount of tumor and when it is used for the listed subtypes of adenocarcinoma, that subtype should be coded. However, Note 2 does not indicate that the other subtypes are ignored when one is identified to be predominant and the others are identified as subtype or component only.
","Code to invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant (8230/3), based on the example, using Lung Solid Tumor Rules Coding Multiple Histologies instruction #1 that says to code the specific histology where the most specific histology may be described as component, majority/majority of, or predominantly, in this case, 75%. Apply Rule M2 as this appears to be a single tumor with multiple histologies based on the information provided.
The rules will be updated to add a new H rule and to reviseTable 2 when two or more histologies described as predominant are present.
","2019" "20190050","Reportability/Melanoma: Is evolving melanoma reportable with a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are cited in the pathology report? See Discussion.
","How do we interpret the reportability of the following: The histological and immunohistochemical findings are most consistent with an early-evolving malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type, with Clark's level II and maximal Breslow thickness 0.33 mm, arising in association with an atypical nevus. Since a Clark's level and Breslow's thickness are included, is this reportable? Is this really an evolving melanoma?
","As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.
","2019" "20190049","Lymph nodes/Melanoma: Is a single axillary lymph node regional or distant for a patient diagnosed in 2018 with metastatic melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was an single axillary lymph node excision that was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined; the primary site is coded to C449. See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed in 2018 with met melanoma to the brain found via imaging. The staging procedure was a single axillary lymph node excision which was positive for metastatic melanoma. The exact site of the primary was never determined and the site code is C449. Is the axillary lymph node regional or distant? This affects how I code regional lymph nodes positive, regional lymph nodes examined, and scope of regional lymph node surgery or surgical procedure other site. Similar question was asked in the past (question # 20091101) but I have not found this question restated since the 2018 changes and just want to verify this is still what we are to do.
","Lymph node mets from a melanoma of unknown primary site are presumed to be regional if the lymph node mets are confined to one area, as they are in this case. We are assuming there are no previous melanoma diagnoses for this patient. The workup should include examination of the skin areas that drain to the axillary area.
","2019" "20190048","Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp reportable? If so, what is the histology?
","","Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex of the scalp is reportable. Malignant hidroacanthoma simplex is a synonym for porocarcinoma, 8409/3.
","2019" "20190047","Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is ""definitely HCC"" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization.
","Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields.
","2019" "20190046","Tumor Size/Bladder: The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual says to use imaging over physical exam as priority for determining tumor size. If a bladder tumor is 4 cm visualized on cystoscopy, and is 2.8 cm on CT scan, which should be used as the clinical size? Is cystoscopy (endoscopy) a clinical exam or imaging?
","","For the case described here, use the size from the CT scan. Physical exam includes what can be seen by a clinician either directly or through a scope. A tumor size obtained visually via cystoscopy is part of a physical exam. Therefore, the imaging (CT) tumor size is preferred. Use text fields to describe the details.
","2019" "20190045","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with a right lateral tongue (C023) tumor in 2016 that was verrucous carcinoma (8051), followed by a new left tongue border (C021) tumor in 2019 that was squamous cell carcinoma, NOS (8070)? See Discussion.
","According to the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules in place at the time of the 2016 diagnosis, verrucous carcinoma was listed as a specific type of squamous carcinoma (Chart 1). However, in the current Solid Tumor Rules, verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4 (Tumors of Oral Cavity and Mobile Tongue) either as a specific histology or as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma. The only subtype/variant listed for these sites is acantholytic squamous cell carcinoma (8075).
Verrucous carcinoma is not listed in Table 4, making it unclear if it should be a different histology for these specified sites. However, verrucous carcinoma is listed as a specific subtype/variant of squamous carcinoma for other sites (e.g., Table 3).
","Accession a single primary based on the 2018 Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rule M13 as none of the other rules apply to the situation.
Not all histology codes are contained in the tables in the Solid Tumor Rules as they list the more common histologies. Verrucous carcinoma is a subtype of squamous cell carcinoma according to Table 3 of the Rules.
Solid Tumor rule tables are based on 4th Ed WHO Blue Books. Verrucous SCC is not included in oral cavity/mobile tongue chapter.
","2019" "20190044","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Is the term phenotype equivalent to type, subtype, variant for the purpose of coding histology? See Discussion.
","In our region, pathologists often describe histology using the term phenotype. However, the use of the term phenotype is not discussed in the Solid Tumor Manual.
Example: Final Diagnosis of a colon tumor is invasive adenocarcinoma with a mixed phenotype, and the Diagnosis Comment states: The majority of the disease is poorly differentiated/signet ring cell phenotype.
Would the histology be coded to 8490 (signet ring cell carcinoma), if the majority of the tumor is a more specific histology described by the term phenotype?
","While variant, type, and subtype can be used interchangeably according to the Solid Tumor Rules, SINQ 20170058 states that the Multiple Primaries/Histology (now Solid Tumor) Rules do not include coding phenotype. Code as invasive adenocarcinoma NOS (8140).
","2019" "20190043","Diagnostic Confirmation: How is Diagnostic Confirmation coded for malignancies diagnosed by a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay involving circulating tumor DNA in blood only? See Discussion.
","Example: FoundationAct assay of circulating tumor DNA in blood sample results: Tumor type = non-small cell lung carcinoma, NOS, with 3 genomic alterations identified: NRAS Q61H, IDH2 R140Q and TP53 V172F. The tumor was identified on imaging and the imaging findings were not clearly what one would expect to see with a SCLC.
","Code Diagnostic Confirmation as 7, Radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation for this case. Results of a FoundationOne Liquid biopsy/assay are not specific enough to diagnose this lung malignancy.
","2019" "20190042","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Breast: Is a breast resection showing invasive mucinous carcinoma in a single tumor with associated ductal carcinoma in situ and additional findings of a background of lobular carcinoma in situ single or multiple primaries and which M rule applies? See Discussion
","Example: Right breast core biopsy found ductal carcinoma in situ in the upper outer quadrant. Subsequent resection has a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous carcinoma, grade 1, measuring approximately 7 mm, with close margins. See staging summary. Gross description mentions only the primary tumor with associated marker clip from previous biopsy.
Breast Cancer Staging Summary lists (testing and margins removed for brevity):
Procedure type: Lumpectomy.
Specimen laterality: Right.
Tumor size: 7mm.
Histologic type: Invasive mucinous carcinoma.
Histologic grade (Nottingham histologic score): Grade 1, (score 5/9).
Tumor focality: Single focus.
Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.
Treatment effect: No known therapy.
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Present.
Architectural pattern: Cribriform.
Nuclear grade: Grade 1.
Necrosis: Not identified.
Calcifications: Not identified.
Estimated size/extent of DCIS: Spanning an area measuring 15mm.
Pathologic stage: pT1b, pNx. (AJCC 8th ed).
Distant metastasis: Not applicable.
Additional findings: Background lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).
","Apply Breast Solid Tumor Rule M3, abstract a single tumor when there is a single tumor, as there is reference to the primary, single 7 mm tumor. Apply Rule H7 and code the invasive histology only, mucinous carcinoma, when both invasive and in situ components are present. The rules state: Do not use Table 2 Histology Combination Codes for tumors with both invasive and in situ behavior.
","2019" "20190041","Reportability/Primary Site--Gastrointestinal (GI) Tract: Is a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a single nodule in the small intestine (C17_) and a nodule in the stomach (C16_) reportable per the 2018 SEER Coding Manual reporting instructions for GIST due to the multiple foci or do the multiple foci need to be in the same organ to be reportable? See Discussion.
","Example: Small intestine wedge resection with GIST, 1.8 cm in mid small intestine, single nodule. Stomach nodule biopsy: GIST, 0.3 cm. Pathology report comment section indicates the gastric GIST is not staged due to the small size and incidental nature.
","Report the GIST in the small intestine. The 2018 SEER Manual says to report GIST when there are multiple foci and to code the primary site to the site where the malignancy originated. Use text fields to record the details, including the stomach nodule.
","2019" "20190040","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is peripheral blood with a diagnosis of monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable for any year? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype.
While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable.
SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3).
","The description in the question is for 9823/1 per WHO blue book 2016. This description and code are not reportable. We will review the other SINQ questions and revise if necessary.
","2019" "20190039","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, predominantly papillary subtype, with minor acinar and lepidic subtypes? See Discussion.
","11/01/2018, lung, left upper lobe, wedge resection: Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, predominantly papillary subtype, with minor acinar and lepidic subtypes. Would this be 8260/3 since the acinar and lepidic subtypes are described as minor or would this be 8255/3 because there is papillary plus two other subtypes/variants described as subtypes?
","Code as adenocarcinoma, papillary predominant (8260/3) according to the Lung Solid Tumor Rules, Coding Multiple Histologies, which says to code the specific histology. The most specific histology may be described as component, majority/majority of, or predominantly, where predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor.
","2019" "20190038","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded and which H Rule applies for a single tumor with final diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinoma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) synoptic report states, Histologic type: Invasive cribriform carcinoma with no mention of a tumor percentage? See Discussion.
","In the April 2019 Breast Solid Tumor Rules update, the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology was changed, giving equal priority to the Final diagnosis / synoptic report as required by CAP (item 2B).
There are technically two histologies documented for the case above; a Not Otherwise Stated (NOS)/No Special Type (NST) (invasive mammary carcinoma, per final diagnosis text) and subtype/variant (invasive cribriform carcinoma, per CAP report). If we do not use the synoptic report with priority over the final diagnosis, Rule H14 indicates the histology would be the NOS histology (invasive mammary carcinoma) because the percentage of tumor is not given for the subtype. However, SINQ 20180045 states, In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma.
If the pathologist summarizes the findings in a synoptic report, should the specific Histologic Type identified have priority?
","Based on the synoptic report findings, code cribriform carcinoma using Breast Solid Tumor Rule H12 which says to code the histology when only one histology is present. The histologic type describes one histology and does not describe the components of an NOS/NST with a subtype, in which case a different rule would apply.
The priority order for using documentation to identify histology gives equal weight to final diagnosis and synoptic report, secondary to addendum or comments. Use the more specific histology if either the final diagnosis or synoptic provides the additional information on the histology.
","2019" "20190037","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted for simultaneously diagnosed non-contiguous invasive duct carcinoma and mucinous carcinoma? Does rule M12 apply since the two histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.
","Core biopsy of left breast at 2:00: Invasive ductal carcinoma, Nottingham score 6/9.
Core biopsy of left breast at 4:00: Invasive mucinous carcinoma (variant of ductal carcinoma), Nottingham score 5/9.
Post neo-adjuvant mastectomy: Main (largest tumor): Invasive ductal carcinoma, upper outer quadrant grade 2. Secondary tumor: mucinous carcinoma, grade 1 at 4:00.
","Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 of the Breast Solid Tumor Rules. Use Rule M14 as each row in the table reflects a distinctly different histology, in this case, invasive ductal carcinoma (8500) and mucinous carcinoma (8480).
","2019" "20190036","First Course of Treatment/Hormone Therapy--Breast: Is hormone therapy (HT) prescribed for invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast coded as treatment for lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) of the left breast even though the treatment plan for the LCIS was documented as surveillance? See Discussion.
","Patient is diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), right breast, receives HT, radiation therapy, and surgery. The same patient is diagnosed with LCIS, left breast one month later--recommend surveillance only (no surgery). Is the HT for the left breast coded at all? I think for COC/NCCN, we do not, but for SEER what would I do? Treatment in the SEER Manual 2018 states, ""Code the treatment on each abstract when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment given for one primary also affects/treats another primary."" The example include bladder/prostate and ovarian/cervix. It also states, ""Code the treatments only for the site that is affected when a patient has multiple primaries and the treatment affects only one of the primaries."" The example includes colon/tonsil. Breast LCIS treatment appears complicated. Per NCCN guidelines, this condition no longer has recommendations, however it appears as though they still state that if a core biopsy is done and is LCIS, follow up should be ultrasound or surgical excision. Nowhere does it state hormone is recommended.
","Do not code the hormone treatment for the LCIS since it was clearly documented that the hormone treatment was given for the IDC and the treatment for the LCIS was documented as ""surveillance."" Use text fields to record the details on both abstracts.
","2019" "20190035","Reportability/Histology--Vulva/Penis: Are differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (C60._) and differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (C51._) reportable for cases diagnosed 2018+? See Discussion.
","We previously downloaded the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update tables which included the note, not reportable for 2018, for both of these terms (with an updated histology 8071/2). SINQ 20180020 confirms differentiated penile and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia are NOT reportable for 2018 (as does 20160069). However, when looking at the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 histology update table today, the not reportable for 2018 comment has been removed and it appears these two terms are reportable. Which is correct?
","Report differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (8071/2). The 2018 ICD-O-3 Coding Table errata dated 8/22/2018, lists the summary of changes of 7/20/2018, stating that these were erroneously flagged as not reportable and the flag was changed from not reportable to reportable (N to Y).
We will update SINQ 20180020.
","2019" "20190034","Reportability/Histology--Penis: Is a diagnosis of undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) reportable for cases diagnosed in any year? See Discussion.
","Example: An October 2017 glans penis biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: Undifferentiated (Warty-Basaloid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia.
In January 2018, an additional penile glans biopsy final diagnosis was reported as: At least squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ (HGPIN). Foreskin circumcision on the same pathology report shows SCC in situ.
It is unclear whether the term undifferentiated is synonymous with high-grade for the purposes of determining penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN/PEIN) reportability and diagnosis date.
","Report undifferentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (PeIN) (8077/2). WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, lists basaloid (undifferentiated) penile intraepithelial neoplasia and warty (Bowenoid) penile intraepithelial neoplasia as a variants of PeIN.
","2019" "20190033","Update to current manual/Neoadjuvant therapy/Pathologic tumor size--Breast: When a patient with invasive breast cancer is started on neoadjuvant therapy and at surgery is found to have only residual in-situ disease, do we record the size of the in-situ tumor for Pathologic Tumor Size? See Discussion.
","I understand that we are to record the Clinical Tumor Size in Tumor Size Summary because of the neoadjuvant therapy, but the SEER manual does not address what to record in the Pathologic Tumor Size after neoadjuvant therapy. Would we record 999 or the size of the in-situ tumor in the Pathologic Tumor Size field? Will there ever be a new data item added or changes to this current data item? By recording the Patholigic Tumor Size this way, there currently will not be any way to compare tumor size clinically versus after neoadjuvant therapy and assessing the response.
","Note: this is an update to the 2018 SEER manual.
Assign 999 in Pathologic Tumor Size when neoadjuvant therapy has been administered. We can explore the possibility of another data item in the future.
","2019" "20190032","Summary Stage 2018--Lung: Are ground-glass lung nodules coded as distant for Summary Stage? See Discussion.
","Chest x-ray: Multifocal pneumonia in left lung; possibility of masses in left lung not excluded.
Chest CT: 4 large ground-glass masses in LUL (largest 46mm); beginning of Tree-In-Bud appearance in LUL; 2 small ground-glass nodules in right lung.
Lung LUL biopsy: Adenocarcinoma, Solid Predominant.
No further information as patient did not want to discuss treatment options.
Per the AJCC book and CAnswer Forum, multifocal classification should be applied equally whether the lesions are in the same lobe OR in different ipsilateral lobes OR contralateral lobes, cT2b(m), cN0, cM0.
","Do not assume that ground glass presentation is consistent with a neoplasm. There are numerous causes of a ground glass lung condition such as sarcoidosis or pulmonary fibrosis. A ground glass lung opacity may also be observed in conditions such as alveolar proteinosis, desquamative pneumonitis, hypersensitive pneumonitis, and drug-induced or radiation-induced lung disease. If an area of ground glass opacity persists in the lung, it is usually classified as an adenocarcinoma, a classification that ranges from premalignant lesions to invasive disease. This is in line with AJCC that states to stage based on the largest tumor determined to be positive for cancer.
To Summary Stage the case example provided, ignore the lesions in the contralateral lung (do not assume that they are malignant). There are multiple lesions in the left lung, but once again, do not assume that those not biopsied are malignant. This leaves us with the lesion confirmed to be malignant, making this a Localized (code 1) tumor.
","2019" "20190031","Primary site--Head & Neck: Are cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV positive (EBV+) coded to the nasopharynx, and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16 positive (p16+) coded to the oropharynx, when no primary site is identified? See Discussion.
","This question involves positive cervical lymph nodes with an unknown primary site. The SEER Manual says under the coding instructions for Primary Site:
14. b.Use the NOS category for the organ system or the Ill-Defined Sites (C760-C768) if the physician advisor cannot identify a primary site.
Note: Assign C760 for Occult Head and Neck primaries with positive cervical lymph nodes.
Schema Discriminator 1: Occult Head and Neck Lymph Nodes is used to discriminate between these cases and other uses of C760. Does SEER agree with AJCC that cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are EBV+ should be coded to the nasopharynx and cases with positive cervical lymph nodes that are p16+ should be coded to the oropharynx, if no primary site is identified?
","Assign primary site C119 (nasopharynx) for occult head and neck tumors with cervical metastasis in Levels I-VII, and other group lymph nodes that are positive for Epstein ""Barr virus (EBV+) (regardless of p16 status) encoded small RNAs (EBER) identified by in situ hybridization.
Assign primary site C109 (oropharynx) for occult head and neck tumors with cervical metastasis in Levels I-VII, and other group lymph nodes, p16 positive with histology consistent with HPV-mediated oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC).
","2019" "20190030","Summary Stage 2018/Extension--Prostate: Can imaging be used to code SEER Summary Stage 2018? MRI shows tumor involved the seminal vesicles and the patient did not have surgery. AJCC does not use imaging to clinically TNM stage a prostate case.
","","Note 5 was changed in Version 2.0.
Per Note 5 of the 2018 SEER Summary Stage Prostate chapter: Imaging is not used to determine the clinical extension. If a physician incorporates imaging findings into their evaluation (including the clinical T category), do not use this information.
This note was changed in Version 2.0 (2021 changes) to be in line with how AJCC stages; therefore, AJCC and Summary Stage agree.
","2019" "20190029","Reportability--Testis: Is demarcated scar tissue with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor and no evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) reportable? See Discussion.
","The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable.
","Burnt-out germ cell tumor (9080/1) is not reportable. According to WHO Classification of Urinary System and Male Genital Organ, regressed germ cell tumors are germ cell tumors that have undergone partial or complete regression leaving a generally well-delineated nodular focus of scar or fibrosis in the testis.
","2019" "20190027","Extent of Disease 2018/Primary tumor/Neoadjuant treatment: If there is no clinical information available and all that is available is the post-neoadjuvant information, is it better to code EOD unknown (999) or use the post-neoadjuvant information to code EOD? See Discussion.
","The Extent of Disease (EOD) Manual states: Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy: If the patient receives neoadjuvant (preoperative) systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy) or radiation therapy, code the clinical information if that is the farthest extension documented. If the post-neoadjuvant surgery shows more extensive disease, code the extension based on the post-neoadjuvant information.
","Code EOD Primary Tumor using the post neoadjuvant information for this case. Since the only information you have is the post neoadjuvant, code that. EOD combines clinical and pathological information.
","2019" "20190026","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Does Rule M11 in the 04/2019 Solid Tumor Rules Urinary update apply to synchronous/simultaneous tumors only or to multiple tumors with any timing? See Discussion.
","Rule M11 states: Abstract a single primary when there are urothelial carcinomas in multiple urinary organs, but neither the Rule nor the Notes describe the timing of these multiple urinary organ carcinomas. Timing requirements for other rules are clearly stated.
Does Rule M11 have a timing requirement or is it intended to apply to all urothelial carcinoma tumors regardless of timing (and not already qualifying for application of a previous M rule)?
","The revised Urinary Solid Tumor Rules 2018 Rule M11, updated April 2019, removed the requirement of synchronous. This applies to urothelial carcinoma (8120) and its corresponding subtypes, regardless of behavior, that occur in more than one urinary site in a patient's lifetime. See change log for the April 2019 update to urinary rules.This is the same M/PH rule for multiple sites. Timing does not factor in to this rule.
","2019" "20190025","2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Colon: What is the histology code of a diagnosis of well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), grade 2 of the appendix? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20160023 and the Solid Tumor Rules indicate NET G1 (or well differentiated NET) is coded as 8240 and NET G2 is coded as 8249.
Clarification regarding grade coding in the CAnswer Forum indicates well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor refers to the histologic type, and not the grade. Therefore, the term well differentiated is ignored for the purpose of grade coding.
Neither of these sources clarifies how to code histology for a tumor diagnosed as well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, grade 2.
","Assign histology code 8249 for histology described as well differentiated NET G2. A synonym for NET of the appendix includes well-differentiated endocrine tumor/carcinoma according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System, 4th edition. ""Well differentiated"" could apply to either NET G1 or NET G2.
","2019" "20190023","First course of treatment/Radiation therapy--Kidney: Patient has a CT-guided biopsy of a right renal mass with procedure details under the Interventional Radiology Procedure Note stating ""Gelfoam tract embolization."" Is this particular embolization treatment?
","","Gelfoam tract embolization for a CT-guided renal biopsy is not treatment. It is a method to plug the biopsy track to reduce the risk of hemorrhage.
","2019" "20190022","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Is histology code or the number of primaries assigned differently in SINQ 20180093 if the word ""pattern' was omitted? See Discussion.
","Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary.
My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor.
","If the word ""pattern' was omitted, you would abstract multiple primaries per the Lung Solid Tumor Rule M6 and code histology to adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant (8551/3) and adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (8250/3) per Rule H4 as the word ""pattern' is not included in each histology.
","2019" "20190021","Sequence Number Central--Brain and CNS: How is Sequence Number--Central coded for current/recent benign brain/CNS tumors when the patient has a history of an additional non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 (when these tumors became reportable to SEER)? See Discussion.
","We are confused by the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2018 instruction that states: This sequence number counts all tumors that were reportable in the year they were diagnosed even if the tumors occurred before the registry existed or before the registry participated in the SEER Program. Does this rule apply to benign and borderline CNS tumors?
Does this mean that any non-malignant CNS tumor diagnosed prior to 2004 should NOT be included in the sequencing (in the 60s range) if we were collecting non-malignant CNS per our State Registry reporting requirements prior to 2004?
Example: Patient has a March 2017 diagnosis of right sided vestibular schwannoma (C724-1, 9560/0) and a prior history of left sided acoustic neuroma (c724-2, 9560/0) diagnosed in 1991. How should sequence be coded for each primary in our file?
","For your example, code the Sequence Number--Central as 61 for the 1991 diagnosis if this was a state registry requirement in 1991 and code 62 for the 2017 diagnosis.
","2019" "20190020","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: What table in the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules applies to tumors of the lip (C000-C009)? The rules apply to all tumors in sites C000-C148, C300-C339, C410, C411, C442 and C479, but none of the histology tables include the lip. See Discussion.
","Example: Patient has a secretory carcinoma of minor salivary gland tissue (mammary analogue secretory carcinoma [MASC]) of the mucosal lower lip; it is unclear which table to use and how to arrive at the correct histology using the H Rules.
Rule H1 (code the histology when only one histology is present) states, Note 1: Use Tables 1-9 to code histology. There is no table that includes the lip. The correct histology should be 8502 which is listed in Table 6 (Tumors of Salivary Glands) however this does not correspond to minor salivary glands of the mucosal lip (site C003 per ICD-O-3 coding instruction).
The 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table does not include this histology, however Table 6 indicates code 8502 (secretory carcinoma) is a new code that was approved by IARC/WHO.
The ICD-O-3 only includes this histology as secretory carcinoma of breast. Therefore, in order to arrive at the correct histology, one must be aware of previous SINQ entries 20160036 and 20130003 that indicate secretory carcinoma (or MASC) is histology 8502. However, these are related to MP/H Rules, so registrars may be hesitant to apply this guideline to cases coded using Solid Tumor Rules.
","Assign 8502/3 using Table 6 of 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Head and Neck. Table 4 notes that there is no ICD-O site code for minor salivary glands. Many minor salivary glands are located in the lips, inner cheek (buccal mucosa), and there are extensive minor salivary glands in the linings of the mouth and throat. Code to the site in which the salivary gland is located.
Mammary analog secretory carcinoma (MASC), also called secretory carcinoma, is a rare, generally low-grade salivary gland carcinoma characterized by morphological resemblance to mammary secretory carcinoma and ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion. Common sites are of the parotid gland, oral cavity, submandibular gland, and the axilla with rare sites being the face including the lips, trunk, and limbs according to WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 4th edition and WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition.
This histology is usually associated with primary site of breast and you may get an edit that you can override.
","2019" "20190019","Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a single meningioma tumor when the histology is a meningioma comprised of multiple specific subtypes/variants? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient has a left cerebral meningioma that is meningothelial meningioma (9531) and two right-sided cerebral meningiomas: one that is transitional meningioma (9537) and the other that is meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I. If the histology for the mixed tumor is 9534 (angiomatous meningioma), then there are three primaries. If the histology is 9537 (transitional meningioma), then there are two primaries.
Per Table 6, angiomatous meningioma is 9534/0 and transitional meningioma is 9537/0. There is no mixed histology coding rule, or mixed histology meningioma code. There is also no default rule that would instruct registrars to code the numerically higher ICD-O code or to default to a meningioma (NOS) histology code.
","Code the histology for the meningioma, transitional and angiomatous, WHO Grade I to Meningioma, NOS (9530/0). Since a mixed meningioma ICD-O code has not been proposed by WHO, we consulted with our expert neuropathologist.
The other option is to follow back with the pathologist and code what they feel is the predominant type. A new histology rule for coding mixed meningiomas will be added in a future update of CNS rules.
","2019" "20190018","Histology--Thyroid: Should any mention of encapsulated be included in the histology coding (8343/3 vs. 8260/3) for papillary thyroid carcinoma cases? See Discussion.
","Example: Left thyroid lobectomy with final diagnosis
When the only mention of encapsulation is included in the tumor characteristics of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) summary, not the pathologist's choice of histologic type, what is the preferred histology?
","Assign 8343/3 for encapsulated variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. If the pathology report is not available, use the histologic type in addition to other information in the CAP Protocol.
","2019" "20190017","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: The term indolent systemic mastocytosis is listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table with borderline behavior (9741/1). However, smoldering systemic mastocytosis is listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database (Heme DB) as an alternate name for histology 9741/3. Are smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis synonymous? If so, should smoldering systemic mastocytosis also be removed from the Heme DB alternate names listing? See Discussion.
","In addition to the issue mentioned above, there is a SINQ answer that conflicts with the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology Update table. SINQ 20130134 indicates indolent systemic mastocytosis is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. There is no date restriction indicating the SINQ note applies only for cases diagnosed 2010-2017. Since indolent systemic mastocytosis was changed to borderline (9741/1) for diagnosis year 2018+, should the diagnosis year range be updated for this SINQ answer?
","Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable, 9741/3. Indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable as of cases diagnosed 2018, 9741/1.
Smoldering systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis are not synonymous. Smoldering differs from indolent based on diagnostic criteria and burden of disease; indolent is low whereas smoldering is high burden of disease that can progress to aggressive systemic mastocytosis or mast cell leukemia.
We will update SINQ 20130134.
","2019" "20190016","Update to current manual/SS2018--Breast: Should Code 3 of the Summary Stage 2018 (SS2018) for Breast designate the intramammary and infraclavicular lymph nodes as being ipsilateral? Similarly, should Code 7 designate infraclavicular lymph nodes as contralateral/bilateral? Laterality (ipsilateral, contralateral/bilateral) is included for axillary and internal mammary nodes in the respective codes.
","","Based on your question, a review of the AJCC manual was done to clarify how these nodes would be coded. A review of Extent of Disease (EOD) Regional Nodes and EOD Mets was also done. That information is correct and in line with AJCC 8th edition. We apologize that SS2018 was not updated accordingly and thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
Per AJCC, infraclavicular and intramammary nodes are ipsilateral for the N category. Contralateral or bilateral involvement are included in the M category.
The following will be applied to the planned 2020 update of the SS2018 manual.
Code 3
Ipsilateral will be added to Infraclavicular and Intramammary
Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (ipsilateral)
Intramammary (ipsilateral)
Code 7
The following will be added under Distant lymph nodes
Infraclavicular (subclavicular) (contralateral or bilateral)
Intramammary (contralateral or bilateral)
","2019" "20190015","Update to current manual/EOD 2018--EOD Primary Tumor: Should Note 6 in Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma be revised to exclude pelvic sites? See Discussion.
","There is a discrepancy between Notes 3 and 6 in the schemas Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma for EOD Primary Tumor. Note 3 describes extension/discontinuous metastasis to the pelvic sites (code 450) and includes the sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum since these are all pelvic sites. However, Note 6 also includes rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon.
Note 6 is describing extension/discontinuous metastasis to the abdominal sites (600-750), so it should include rectosigmoid or sigmoid colon (since those are pelvic sites). Note 6 indicates, Intestine, large (except rectum). In the previous Collaborative Stage, the corresponding note used to also include: except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid and rectum.
Did sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid get removed from the list here? That is, should Note 6 read, Intestine, large (except sigmoid colon, rectosigmoid, rectum)? Involvement of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid, or rectum via peritoneal seeding/metastasis is consistent with T2b disease and would correlate with code 450 (pelvic sites), not codes 600-750 (abdominal sites). Those codes only correlate with T3 and greater disease (i.e., peritoneal seeding/metastasis of the abdomen).
","Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
Rectosigmoid and Sigmoid Colon belong in Note 3 and not Note 6 for the following EOD schemas: Fallopian Tube, Ovary, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma. Rectosigmoid and sigmoid colon will be removed as separate listings from Note 6. The only mention in Note 6 will be: Intestine, large (except rectum, rectosigmoid, and sigmoid colon)
This change will be made for the next update.
","2019" "20190014","Reportability--Behavior: Is reportable if it shows invasion or microinvasion pathologically? See Discussion.
","The SEER Manual states, Generally, this rule is invoking the Matrix principle in the ICD-O-3.
We are aware this is not the same as a VIN III or an adenoma with microinvasion because those tumors have a valid histology code listed in the ICD-O-3. The terms or or do not have a valid ICD-O-3 code to apply the Matrix principle.
If severe dysplasia is felt to be consistent with a carcinoma in situ, then a severe dysplasia with microinvasion would be reportable as 8010/3. But in the U.S., we do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ).
","Severe dysplasia alone is not reportable. No further instructions apply because this term is not reportable.In order to use the instructions for behavior, you must first have a reportable neoplasm.
If carcinoma in situ is mentioned and there is microinvasion, code the behavior as /3 according to the instructions in the SEER manual.
You are correct, do not accession severe dysplasia as equivalent to carcinoma in situ unless the pathologist also states the severe dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ (e.g., ).
","2019" "20190013","Laterality--Head and Neck: Were the topography codes C090 and C091 intentionally left off of the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table in the 2018 SEER Manual? The codes were also removed from Table 10 in the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Head and Neck but appear under coding instructions 1b. and 6b. in the manual.
","","Thank you for bringing this to our attention. C090 and C091 were intentionally removed from the list of sites for which laterality must be coded. They should have also been removed from coding instructions 1b and 6b. We will make that correction in the next version of the manual.
","2019" "20190011","Reportability--Skin: Is an atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin reportable? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient has left thigh skin excision with final diagnosis of atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation, inked peripheral margin is involved and inked deep margin is free of disease in the sections examined. See Comment.
Diagnosis comment states: The terminology regarding this lesion is controversial. Lesions with identical features are designated as leiomyosarcoma in the dermatopathology literature, whereas, the preferred classification in the soft tissue pathology is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm. Although the lesion appears predominantly dermal based, since the margin is involved, the lesion cannot be entirely evaluated, and therefore the final designation is deferred to the findings in the excisional specimen. (This slide was read by bone and soft tissue pathologist.)
There has been no excision of this tumor and, as a central registry, we have no access to the pathologist for clarification.
Is this skin case reportable based on the dermatopathology interpretation when further documentation is not available?
","Since you do not have the option of checking with the pathologist and no further information is available, do not report this case. The diagnosis is atypical smooth muscle cell proliferation of the skin, which is not reportable.
Registrars with access to the pathologist should querry the pathologist for clarification in this situation.
","2019" "20190010","Reportability/Histology--Bladder: Is papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (PUNLMP) (8130/1) reportable when also referred to as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1, no invasion (8130/2) previously? See Discussion.
","The pathology report reads: Urinary bladder, tumor over right ureteral orifice, biopsy: Urinary bladder mucosa (urothelium) and submucosa (lamina propria), with papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential (previously known as papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1 of 3), no invasion identified.
","This case is not reportable. PUNLMP (8130/1) is the diagnosis stated by the pathologist for this case and PUNLMP is not reportable. The information in parentheses is informational in this case and does not change the pathologist's diagnosis.
According to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs, 4th edition, there is variation of architectural and cytological features between PUNLMP and papillary urothelial carcinoma, low grade, reflecting grading changes from an older classification system.
","2019" "20190009","First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is ""Goldilocks,"" also referred to as oncoplastic reconstruction, in the surgery section for breast cancer patients coded?
","","Code Goldilocks mastectomy in Surgery of Primary Site. Breast surgery code 30 seems to be the best available choice for ""Goldilocks"" mastectomy. It is essentially a skin-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction. The choice between code 30 and codes in the 40-49 range depends on the extent of the breast removal. Review the operative report carefully and assign the code the best reflects the extent of the breast removal.
","2019" "20190007","Reportability--Skin: Is atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) of the skin reportable? The comment on the path report states: Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed ""cutaneous leiomyosarcoma.""
","","Atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN), previously termed ""cutaneous leiomyosarcoma,"" is not reportable. It is classified as a borderline, /1, neoplasm.
","2019" "20190006","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Please confirm Multiple Primaries/Histology Breast Rule M8 applies in this 2017 case. The surgical resection is >60 days past the biopsy date but is it possible treatment plans for breast could span >60 days and this is one primary? See Discussion.
","7/25/17
Part A: Left breast at 8:00, 5 CFN: Specimen type: Stereotactic biopsy. Tumor type: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), cribriform type. Tumor size: The largest focus of DCIS measures 1 mm in greatest dimension as measured on the slide. Nuclear grade: 2 (Intermediate grade). Microcalcifications: Present. Other findings: Stromal fibrosis, microcalcification and fat necrosis.
11/1/17
A. Sentinel lymph node, left: One lymph node, negative for metastatic tumor on three levels of routine H\T\E and pan cytokeratin immunohistochemical stains.
B. Left breast: Procedure: Total mastectomy with skin and nipple. Specimen Laterality: Left. Lymph Node Sampling: Yes, portion A. Specimen Integrity: Intact. Histologic Type: Extensive ductal carcinoma in situ and one focus of Invasive ductal carcinoma with mucinous features. Histologic Grade (Nottingham Histologic Score): Glandular Differentiation: Score 3 Nuclear Grade: Score 2. Mitotic Count: Score 1. Total Nottingham score 6 (grade 2, moderately differentiated). Tumor Size: 3.3 x 2 mm (0.33 x 0.2 cm) measured on slide (B3). Tumor Site: Lower inner quadrant of left breast. Tumor Focality: Unifocal. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Present, cribriform, solid and micropapillary types with focal necrosis and calcifications. Size of DCIS: Number of blocks examined: Thirty (30). Number of blocks with DCIS: Thirteen (13). Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS): Not identified, Lymphovascular Invasion: Present. Perineural Invasion: Not identified. Other Findings: Changes consistent with previous biopsy site. Cysts, foci of atypical ductal hyperplasia, focal ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, stromal fibrosis and microcalcifications. Skin (epidermis): Uninvolved. Nipple: Uninvolved. Margins: 1 mm from DCIS to the closest deep margin (slide B12). At least 10 mm (1 cm) from invasive carcinoma to deep margin. Estrogen receptor (ER, clone 1D5) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), high intensity, in greater than 95% of carcinoma cells. Progesterone receptor (PR, clone 16) by immunohistochemistry performed on this material: Positive (invasive and in situ carcinoma), moderate intensity in about 80% of the carcinoma cells. Her 2 by FISH performed on this material: Pending, an addendum to follow. Pathologic staging: pT1aN0(sn)MX (AJCC 7th edition). Dictated by: (Pathologist), MD Intradepartmental review.
","Abstract a single breast primary. Apply MP/H Rule M3 as this is a single tumor identified in the biopsy at 8 o'clock and at the same location in the mastectomy specimen. Code the behavior as invasive according to rule H9.
The first course of therapy ends when the documented treatment plan is completed, no matter how long, unless there is progression, recurrence, or treatment failure.
","2019" "20190005","Primary Site--Bladder: Does instruction #4 in the Urinary Sites Solid Tumor Rules Instructions for Coding Primary Site apply to a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors?
Instruction #4: Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system.
See Discussion.
","Example: Patient has multiple biopsies with final diagnosis of in situ papillary urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra and invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the bladder.
How should primary site be coded in this type of mixed in situ and invasive situation?
","Code Urinary System NOS C689 for this case since there are two separate urinary sites involved. Apply instruction #4 when there is a mix of in situ and invasive urothelial tumors.
","2019" "20190004","Systemic/Surgery Sequence: Does the Systemic/Surgery Sequence field apply to only the first surgery performed (Date of First Surgical Procedure) or does it apply to the most definitive surgery (Date Most Definitive Surgery) as well? See Discussion.
","Example: Bladder primary with transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) on 2/17/2017 (Date of First Surgical Proc) followed by a second TURBT on 3/24/2017 (Date Most Definitive Surgery) with mitomycin C instilled on the second, most definitive TURB procedure.
There is an edit failure (IFX166) when Systemic/Surgery Sequence is coded 5 (intra-operative systemic) and Systemic Date does not match Date of First Surgical Procedure. How should we capture the intra-operative systemic treatment during the second, most definitive TURB? Is the correct Surgery/Systemic Sequence code 3 (systemic after surgery) for this case because (intra-operative) chemo was technically given after the first surgery?
","Assign code 3 to Systemic/Surgery Sequence and document the intraoperative treatment in the text field. Surgery is defined as a Surgical Procedure to the Primary Site (codes 10-90), Scope of RLN Surgery (codes 1-7), or Surgical Procedure of Other Site (codes 1-5) in the 2018 SEER Manual. In this case, the treatment was after the first surgical procedure.
","2019" "20190003","Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be accessioned and what multiple primaries/histology rules apply to a meningioma of the spinal meninges and a meningioma of the cerebral meninges? See Discussion.
","Example: Brain MRI shows a mass along underside of right tentorium extending to posterior incisura consistent with meningioma. Spinal MRI shows mass at C4-5 level consistent with meningioma. Resection of spinal meningioma shows final diagnosis of meningioma and College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol summary indicates Histologic Type (WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system): Meningioma, meningothelial. There is no resection of the cerebral meningioma planned. Is the CAP protocol used if it provides a further subtype for meningiomas? Per Solid Tumor Rules, the final diagnosis has priority over the CAP summary. The answer to this question does affect the number of primaries accessioned in this case.
","Accession as multiple primaries using Rule M7 of the Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant Central Nervous System that says to assign multiple primaries for cerebral meninges C700 AND spinal meninges C701. The Non-malignant CNS H coding section, Priority Order for using Documentation to Identify Histology"" lists final DX and synoptic report as requried by CAP as being equal in priority. Use whichever report provides more specific information. See the General Instructions, page 13.
","2019" "20190002","Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How should Histology and Behavior be coded for a polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young (PLNTY) arising in the brain?
","","Assign code 9505/1 for ganglioglioma. Per our expert neuropathologist, according to the paper that has done the most work on PLNTY cases, it appears most closely related to the ganglioglioma. It is surely a neoplasm as it has recurrent mutations and fusions seen in other tumors, again, most like gangliogliomas.
","2019" "20190001","EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Brain and CNS: What are the Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor, EOD Reg Nodes, and Summary Stage 2018 codes for intradural schwannoma of the lumbar spine (L2-L4)? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient diagnosed following a resection of a cystic mass at L2-4 that proved an intradural tumor excision with final diagnosis of schwannoma, WHO grade 1.
Per new Solid Tumor Rules, the primary site in this case should be coded C476 (peripheral nerves of trunk, NOS) and histology is 9560/0 (schwannoma, NOS). However, there are currently no coding options in the Soft Tissue of Trunk and Extremities EOD schema relating to a benign tumor. Likewise there are no coding options in the Soft Tissue and Sarcoma Summary Stage 2018 schema relating to a benign tumor.
How should EOD 2018 and Summary Stage 2018 be coded for reportable benign schwannomas of the spinal nerve roots?
","The instruction regarding C476 has been removed from the Solid Tumor rules. Benign and borderline neoplasms coded to C470-C479 are not reportable at this time.
Assign C720 for an intradural schwannoma at L2-4. That should allow you to use the correct EOD and Summary Stage 2018 schemas.
","2019" "20180113","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung cancer case with invasive non-mucinous adenocarcinoma? For non-mucinous carcinoma/adenocarcinoma, the Solid Tumor Rules have codes for microinvasive, minimally invasive, preinvasive, and in situ. Do we default to the microinvasive/minimally invasive code?
","","Code histology to adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3). The World Health Organization and the College of American Pathologists no longer recognize non-mucinous carcinoma/adenocarcinoma, NOS. Pathologists are discouraged from using this term. Microinvasive/minimally invasive lung tumors have very specific criteria and these criteria do not apply to non-mucinous carcinoma, NOS.
","2018" "20180112","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), NOS as this is not on the AJCC list of histologies? See Discussion.
","A question was posted to CAnswer forum 9/26/18 and answered stating that 8046 is not on the AJCC list of histologies for the lung chapter in the 8th edition. If the final diagnosis on the pathology report is just NSCLC, NOS with no subtype/variant, what histology/solid tumor rule would I use? In this situation, I am not able to query the pathologist. Would I code the histology to 8010 as per AJCC post?
","Code NSCLC to 8046/3.
Do not change a histology code simply to assign TNM to the case. AJCC does not determine histology coding. While pathologists are no longer encouraged to use NSCLC, it does not mean the term and code are obsolete. NSCLC could be any number of histologies such as adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma. A diagnosis of NSCLC indicates that the initial exam of the tissue did not identify a more specific type of NSCLC. Additional immunohistochemical testing is needed to determine the histology. Update the case if better information becomes available from subsequent tests/review.
When analyzing the data, researchers and physicians will be able to identify the cases where the pathologist was unable to or did not perform further testing to determine a specific histology which drives treatment and survival.
","2018" "20180111","Reportability/Histology--Appendix: Is high grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) diagnosed in 2018 reportable? See Discussion.
","Example: Initial CT scan impression is large appendiceal mucocele with a moderate amount of right-sided abdominal ascites. Faint mural enhancement suggesting an underlying appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous adenoma or adenocarcinoma).
Appendectomy follows two days later with final diagnosis of high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, see comment. Histologic grade: Grade G2 of 4 (based on the CAP protocol) . . . Ascites fluid (ThinPrep(r) and cell block preparations): Mucin, fragments of debris, and macrophages. No diagnostic neoplastic cells are identified . . . Pathologic stage: pT4a, pNX, pM1a (AJCC 8th ed).
Diagnosis Comment states, We feel that there are areas of this tumor where the cytologic atypia is beyond what one would expect in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. While mitotic figures are not strikingly increased, there are focal nuclear changes that would support classification of this tumor as high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.
Approximately two weeks later the patient has an Oncology assessment stating new diagnosis of T4a, NX, M1a, Stage IVA high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with mucinous ascites. Patient has had an appendectomy but no further surgery so far. However, anecdotally, the best reported case series has been with surgical debulking followed by HIPEC chemotherapy In that instance I have recommended surgery with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
Is this a reportable malignancy? If so, what is the best histology for the diagnosis?
","2022 and later
HAMN is reportable. Assign 8480/2.
","2018" "20180110","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?
","","The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.
","2018" "20180109","Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later.
","","Based on the information provided, this is a 2018 diagnosis. SEER has been asked to postpone implementing the instruction about using the date of the ambiguous cytology until 2019 or later. We will be removing that instruction from the draft 2018 SEER manual when it is finalized.
","2018" "20180108","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology of a lung mass with a CT-directed fine needle aspirate ""positive for malignancy, favor squamous cell carcinoma. See Discussion.
","Immunostain results of the malignant cells show strong staining with p63 and negative staining with TTF-1 and Napsin. Rare cells stain with CK7. Findings are most compatible with squamous cell carcinoma. The patient is treated as if he has squamous cell carcinoma. The new histology coding rules say you cannot use ambiguous terms which modify the histology to code the histology. So is this 8010/3?
","Code histology to SCC.
The lung rules were updated 10/12/2018 to include clarification on using ambiguous terminology to code histology. See page 32.
Note 2: Histology described by ambiguous terminology is coded when a case is
* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)
* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term
Your case meets both of these criteria so code histology to SCC.
","2018" "20180107","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: If the pathology states non-small cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC), consistent with squamous cell carcinoma, is the code non-small cell carcinoma according to the Solid Tumor Rules? The Medical Oncologist states that the tumor is a squamous cell carcinoma. In these instances would you code the squamous cell carcinoma since you have a definite physician statement?
","","Code the histology to SCC 8070/3.
Based on registrar feedback on the NSCLC rule, we added a rule that specifically addresses when ambiguous terminology can be used to code histology other than NSCLC. The lung rules were update 10/12/2018 so please make sure you are using the currently posted rules. The new rule is: Rule H3-Code the specific histology when the diagnosis is non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) consistent with (or any other ambiguous term) a specific carcinoma (such as adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, etc.) when:
* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)
* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term
* The case is accessioned (added to your database) based on ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented
Example 1: The pathology diagnosis is NSCLC consistent with adenocarcinoma. The oncology consult says the patient has adenocarcinoma of the right lung. This is clinical confirmation of the diagnosis, code adenocarcinoma.
Your case meets the criteria in bullet 1.
","2018" "20180106","First Course Treatment--Other Therapy: Please explain how to code this new therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for rare neuroendocrine tumors. See Discussion.
","According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2023: Code Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) in the data item Other Therapy, code 1, Other.
See SINQ 20220042 and 20230005 for information pertaining to cases diagnosed in 2023 or later.
","2018" "20180105","2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the appropriate histology code for the case below in the Discussion section? Is there a difference between adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) and adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous? See Discussion.
","Procedure: Wedge, resection specimen, Laterality: Right, Tumor site: Right upper lobe, Tumor size: 1.0 cm in greatest dimension, Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma in-situ, mucinous, Histologic grade: N/A, Visceral pleura invasion: Not identified, Tumor extension: N/A, Margins: Uninvolved, Lymphocytosis.
","Assign 8253/2 for adenocarcinoma in situ, mucinous. New codes were added in 2018 for mucinous adenocarcinoma in situ for lung cancer only as all cases were not invasive. Pathologist are discouraged from using the term BAC. In-situ lung tumors can now be identified as either mucinous or non-mucinous and the appropriate ICD-O code should be assigned based on diagnosis.
","2018" "20180104","Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion.
","Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case.
Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation.
","Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable.
","2018" "20180103","Histology/Grade--Small intestine: For a 2017 diagnosis, is the grade/differentiation field coded 1 or 9 when the diagnosis is well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (carcinoid)? It seems as though the term well-differentiated defines type of neuroendocrine tumor so they can diagnosis the carcinoid. See Discussion.
","5/15/17 Duodenal bulb, biopsy: Fragments of duodenal mucosa with well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), extending to the edge of specimen and peptic duodenitis in the submitted tissue. No significant intraepithelial lymphocytosis.
","Assign grade code 1 for well-differentiated NET (8240/3). Well-differentiated is synonymous with NET, grade 1, according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System.
","2018" "20180102","Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Brain and CNS: What code should be used for high grade neuroepithelial tumor with BCOR Alteration? See Discussion
","A recent molecular study of PNET tumors at NCI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139621) seems to indicate the discovery of four new CNS tumor entities, of which HGNET-BCOR is one. The article suggests that these are not primitive neuroectodermal tumors tumors (PNET), but something different.
","This question was reviewed by an expert neuropathologist. He recommends coding these tumors to malignant tumor, clear cell type 8005/3.
He states: these tumors are extremely rare. In summary, CNS HGNET-BCOR represents a rare tumor occurring in young patients with dismal prognosis. Whether CNS HGNET-BCOR should be classified among the category of ""embryonal tumors"" or within the category of ""mesenchymal, nonmeningothelial tumors"" remains to be clarified. Because CNS HGNET-BCOR share pathologic features and characteristic BCOR-ITD with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, these tumors may represent local variants of the same entity.
","2018" "20180101","Histology--Kidney: What is the histology code for renal cell clear cell of the kidney with subsequent epithelioid angiomyolipoma PEComa of the liver stated to be metastatic? Case originaly diagnosed in 2016. See discussion.
","This patient was diagnosed in 2016 with renal cell clear cell and was coded to that. In 2018, the patient's liver lesion was resected and pathology revealed epithelioid angiomyolipoma perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) (8714/3), a new term as of 2018. This was compared to the kidney slides and it was determined to be metastatic PEComa from the kidney. The physician's note states: The patient had a nephrectomy for a kidney tumor in 2016, excision of cutaneous melanomas, and resection of liver mass in 2018. These three cases were sent in consultation. The diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma was confirmed by a dermatopathologist of our department, (a separate report had been already issued). The kidney tumor is poorly differentiated composed of sheets of discohesive cells with markedly pleomorphic cells with frequent giant and bizarre cells. Most of the cells have abundant eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm. The nuclei are enlarged and pleomorphic. Multinucleated cells are numerous. Some cells have markedly enlarged nucleoli. Multifocal tumor necrosis is noted. Extensive lymphovascular invasion is observed. There are foci at the periphery of the tumor consisting of a proliferation of spindle cells with entrapped adipocytes consistent with minor element of unusual angiomyolipoma (see block A18). The liver tumor has histologic features that are similar to the poorly differentiated component of the kidney tumor.
","Revise the histology code for the 2016 diagnosis based on the review of slides performed in 2018. When new information becomes available, the information in the abstract can be updated.
PEComa is a synonym for epithelioid angiomyolipoma (8860/1). These tumors can be malignant with local recurrence and or mets. For a pre-2018 diagnosis, code histology to 8860/3 using the ICD-O-3 Rule F, aka: Matrix principle.
","2018" "20180100","Reportability/Primary Site--Skin: Is vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III (VIN III) or associated invasive squamous cell carcinoma reportable when stated to be of the or or ? See Discussion.
","Example: Operative report states, partial simple vulvectomy, anoscopy with normal-appearing clitoris, clitoral prepuce, bilateral labia majora, and labia minora. There is a 1.5 x 1 cm raised, hyperpigmented lesion which appears consistent with VIN 3 on the perineal body, just to the right of midline, and not touching the midline. It goes quite close to the anus but is not touching the anus.
Final diagnosis on resection is, Invasive squamous cell carcinoma arising in a background of high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN III) with the following features: Location: perineum. Focal invasion arising in setting of 1 cm area of VIN III.
","Squamous carcinoma and squamous intraepithelial neoplasia III arising in the skin of the perineum (C445) are not reportable. Even though the abreviation ""VIN III"" is used in this example, this lesion does not involve the vulva. Since it involves the perineum, and skin of perineum is coded to C445, it is not reportable.
Neoplasms arising in skin (C44) with the following histologies are not reportable.
--Malignant neoplasm (8000-8005)
--Epithelial carcinoma (8010-8046)
--Papillary and squamous cell carcinoma (8050-8084)
--Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445)
--Basal cell carcinoma (8090-8110)
","2018" "20180098","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology: Please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules. See Discussion.
","The 2018 Solid Tumor (ST) Rules General Rules state: For those sites/histologies which have recognized biomarkers, the biomarkers frequently identify the histologic type. Currently there are clinical trials being conducted to determine whether these biomarkers can be used to identify multiple primaries. Follow the Multiple Primary Rules; do not code multiple primaries based on biomarkers.
Additionally, Biomarkers is at the top of the priority order to identify histology in several sections (it appears to be excluded from only Colon, Melanoma and Other sections). In the sections that include this rule, there is not much additional information on using biomarkers. Can you please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules? For example, will the ST manual be updated when we need to look for specific biomarkers in a diagnosis?
","Instructions for biomarkers will be added to other site rules when applicable. The use of biomarkers to determine a specific histologic type is not yet a standard of care in the majority of cases.
","2018" "20180097","Reportability/Histology--Liver: Are primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) reportable? What are the specific histology codes?
","","Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) is reportable as are other digestive system NETs. There is no specific histology code for PHNET. We suggest you assign 8240/3. Use text fields to document the details.
Unless you can obtain clarification, do not report primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm with no further information. If this term is being used as a synonym for PHNET, document this in the registry's policies and procedures, and report these cases.
","2018" "20180096","Reportability/Histology--Small intestine: Is a neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum a reportable tumor? See Discussion.
","This comment was added to the pathology report by the pathologist: A focus of neuroendocrine microtumor measured 350 micrometers, qualifying as a neuroendocrine microtumor. Focus was immunohistochemically positive for chromogranin and synaptophysin and negative for gastrin. The Ki-67/CD45 immunostain showed <1% positivity in microtumor.
","Neuroendocrine microtumor of the duodenum is reportable as 8240/3. ""Microtumor"" pertains to the size/amount of NET and not to a histologic type.
","2018" "20180095","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when the term ""predominant"" is used to describe solid adenocarcinoma, acinar adenocarcinoma, etc.? Pathology reports often say ""See Synoptic"" (also known as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol) included in the Final Diagnosis rather than including all the detail. Based upon the new Solid Tumor Rules for lung, predominant/predominantly is no longer a subtype/variant and should not be coded unless there is a specific code/subtype-variant for the NOS in Table 3, e.g., adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant. See Discussion.
","Examples
Example #1: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Final diagnosis states that Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (80%) and cribriform (20%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)
Example #2: CAP histology type : Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant, Other Subtypes Present (specify subtype(s), may also include percentages): acinar (45%) and micropapillary (5%) Final diagnosis : adenocarcinoma of the lung, please see Synoptic Report
Example #3: CAP histology type: Adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant , Adenocarcinoma, solid predominant Final diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, solid predominant (60%), papillary (30%) and acinar (10%) subtype (see lung carcinoma synoptic report)
","The lung H rules and tables have been updated to include histologies that CAP identifies using the term ""predominant"" in the diagnosis. Example: Code adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant, to 8250/3 rather than 8140/3. When the final pathology diagnosis includes more than one ""predominant"" adenocarcinoma subtype such as acinar, solid, or lepidic, then code the type with the greatest percentage according to Lung Solid Tumor Rule H7.
","2018" "20180094","Reportability--Prostate: According to the 2018 SEER Program Manual, a prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) III is not reportable, but is an atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) PIN 4 reportable?
","","ASAP is not reportable. Patients with ASAP found on needle biopsy will likely undergo another biopsy.
","2018" "20180093","2018 Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: What is the histology and number of primaries for a lung case diagnosed in 2018 with adenocarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern on biopsy, and subsequent lobectomy showing adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern? Should this be coded as one primary with an adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3) histology since we cannot use pattern or predominant, based on the histologic type listed in the synoptic report, and the fact it states synchronous primary tumors in the same lobe. See Discussion.
","02/18 RUL biopsy: Moderatley differentiated adenocacarcinoma with acinar predominant pattern
04/18 RUL lobectomy: 6.5cm poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with solid growth pattern and 1.1 cm separate adenocarcinoma with lepidic predominant pattern
Synoptic report:
Procedure: Lobectomy
Specimen Laterality: Right Tumor
Tumor Site: Upper lobe
Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma, solid predominant
Tumor Size: 6.5 Centimeters (cm)
Tumor Focality: Synchronous primary tumors in same lobe
Lymph Nodes Number of Lymph Nodes Involved: 0
Number of Lymph Nodes Examined: 12
Nodal Stations Examined: 4R: Lower paratracheal; 8R: Para-esophageal (below carina); 10R: Hilar; 7: Subcarinal
Pathologic Stage Classification (pTNM, AJCC 8th Edition)
Primary Tumor (pT): pT3
Regional Lymph Nodes (pN): pN0
","This is a single primary per Lung rule M7. First determine the histology for each tumor. Both tumors are coded 8140/3 because the histologies are a PATTERN. Reference: Coding Multiple Histologies (precedes histology rules) Instruction 2 says do not code pattern . If the word pattern was not in the diagnosis, you would code the specific histology.
","2018" "20180092","Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable? If yes, what is the correct histology code?
","","Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is reportable. For cases diagnosed in 2018, assign 9385/3.
","2018" "20180090","Reportability--Ovary: Is an ovarian serous borderline tumor with microinvasion with serous tumor aggregates (3 mm in greatest dimension) in 2 of 10 pelvic lymph nodes reportable? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20170043 is a similar question about an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor with microinvasion, but the answer seems to be specifically referencing mucinous tumors only. It is unclear if that SINQ could be applied to this case. In addition, we were not sure how to interpret the nodal involvement. The physician assessment after surgery was low grade serous carcinoma, chemo not recommended and letrozole started.
","Ovarian serous borderline tumor with node implants is not reportable; it is a borderline neoplasm. However, if the oncologist believes he or she is dealing with a low grade serous carcinoma rather than a borderline tumor, this case is reportable. We recommend that you determine whether the diagnosis of low grade serous carcinoma, chemotherapy not recommended, is based on the pathological findings or on something else before reporting this case.
","2018" "20180089","Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion.
","Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.
Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.
Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022
Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN).
The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma.
","2018" "20180088","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are abstracted and what M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma in 2014, followed by liver mass biopsy showing neuroendocrine carcinoma, small cell type of the prostate in 2018? See Discussion.
","The patient has a history of prostate adenocarcinoma with lymph node metastases, status post prostatectomy and treatment by Lupron in 2014. The most recent prostate serum antigen measurement (April 2018) was normal. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed new hypodense liver lesions, a slightly enlarging lung right lower lobe nodule, and enlarging lobular mass in the prostatectomy bed. The core liver biopsy contains areas of metastatic tumor with a differential diagnosis on pathology of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate (small cell type), which may have been seen in association with prostate adenocarcinoma, or metastatic small cell carcinoma of a different site.
Clinically, the physician impression is that this represents metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The Solid Tumor Rules note that the Multiple Primary Rules are not used for tumor(s) described as metastases. However, SINQ 20130221 indicates that, at least historically, these would have been accessioned as multiple primaries (histology 8140 & 8041 per Rule M10). Does the previous SINQ note still apply to these types of cases, and if so how would one know to move beyond the initial note indicating metastases are not new primaries?
","The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3.
For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue).
This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites.
","2018" "20180087","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Brain: How many primaries are there and what M Rule applies when two tumors identified in the brain are pathologically proven to be glioblastoma, IDH-wild type and anaplastic astrocytoma per the pathology report final diagnosis, but the diagnosis comment and tumor board indicates multifocal glioblastoma is favored? See Discussion.
","The patient has one tumor each in the left parietal and left medial temporal lobe. The tumors were excised. The final diagnosis for the left parietal tumor is glioblastoma, IDH-wild type. he final diagnosis of the left medial temporal tumor is, at least anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III; see comment. The comment states: There is a single focus of vascular hyperplasia, separate from neoplastic cells. No necrosis is identified. These findings on their own would warrant a diagnosis of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III. However, in the context of the patient's glioblastoma in the left parietal lobe, and imaging showing ring-enhancing lesions of the parietal and temporal lobes, this specimen is favored to be an un-sampled glioblastoma, WHO grade IV. The Solid Tumor Rules indicate we may no longer use terms like favor(s) to code the histology, leaving the final diagnosis as the priority source for coding histology per the Histology coding rules.
The tumor board review confirmed that, despite the anaplastic astrocytoma on pathology, they felt strongly that this is a multifocal glioblastoma and not an anaplastic astrocytoma. Both the pathologist's comment and the tumor board's assessment indicate this patient does not have two primaries. However, the Solid Tumor Rules do not give priority to the tumor board's assessment over the pathology, and registrars are not to use ambiguous terms to code histology thus leaving the two histologies to consider. Per the Solid Tumor Rules, one tumor that is glioblastoma and one tumor that is anaplastic astrocytoma are multiple primaries per M11 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate, non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant).
As a central registry, we cannot ask the pathologist or attending physician for clarification as suggested in Section 3 of the Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Equivalent Terms and Definitions. We can only follow the current Solid Tumor Rules. In doing so, we would have to ignore both the pathologist's and tumor board's assessment that this patient has multifocal glioblastoma. Is there any concern that this will lead to over-reporting?
","Abstract separate primaries based on the two histology codes as these are separate tumors on different rows in Table 3 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Malignant CNS, Rule M11. The priority order for using documentation to identify histology for Malignant CNS is to use pathology/tissue from the resection over the tumor board.
","2018" "20180083","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are abstracted and which M Rule applies when a patient is diagnosed with an invasive urothelial carcinoma tumor of the bladder, followed less than three years later by an invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma tumor of the bladder? See Discussion.
","The Solid Tumor Rules indicate bladder tumors that are urothelial carcinoma (8120) and small cell carcinoma (8041) are separate primaries per Rule M13 (Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 2). These are distinctly different histologies and, presumably, one would want to capture the small cell carcinoma (or small cell carcinoma component) as this has a worse prognosis.
However, if a subsequent bladder tumor is composed of invasive urothelial carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, the histology is coded as 8045/3 per Rule H4, but this is not abstracted as a multiple primary. The only M Rule that applies is Rule M18 (Abstract a single primary when tumors do not meet any of the above criteria). The mixed histology code 8045 is not included in Table 2, so none of the histology-based M Rules apply. Is the subsequent mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma tumor (8045/3) the same primary as a previously diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinoma (8120/3) when these tumors are diagnosed within three years?
","Abstract two separate primaries using Solid Tumor Rules Urinary Sites Rule M13. While not stated in the urinary sites rules, these are separate histology codes in two different rows in Table 2 of the Rules. The initial histology is 8120 and the subsequent tumor is 8045 using Rule H4.
Adding 8045 to Table 2 will cause issues. Small cell neuroendocrine in the bladder is very rare, extremely aggressive, and usually has a component of urothelial carcinoma.
","2018" "20180082","Summary Stage Manual 2018 ""Lymphoma: SEER Summary Stage 2000 states: For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement and is used to determine the number and location of lymph node chains involved (see lymphoma scheme). This statement is not in SEER Summary Stage 2018. Does that mean we follow rules #4-7, pages 14-15, under Code 3: Regional Lymph Nodes only, for every site, including lymphoma?
","","The following statement ""Any mention of the terms including fixed, matted, mass in the hilum, mediastinum, retroperitoneum, and/or mesentery, palpable, enlarged, shotty, lymphadenopathy are all regarded as involvement for lymphomas when determining appropriate code,"" is included in EOD Primary Tumor and is applicable to Summary Stage 2018.
The statement will be added as note 4 to the Lymphoma Summary Stage chapter. This will be included in the 2019 update (estimated release January 2019).
","2018" "20180081","Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is endometrial atypical complex hyperplasia/borderline endometrial adenocarcinoma (FIGO 1), (mucinous type), (no invasion of myometrium) reportable?
","","Do not report this case based on the information provided. The actual diagnosis is somewhere between atypical hyerpplasia and carcinoma in situ. Do not report until/unless a more definitively reportable diagnosis is made.
","2018" "20180079","Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when papillary carcinoma is identified in two biopsies and a subsequent lumpectomy identified invasive ductal carcinoma with multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? See Discussion.
","The right breast ultrasound shows a 1.4 cm mass at 8 o'clock and a separate mass .6 cm at 7 o'clock (site code for both C50.5). Pathology report: Right 8 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2), right 7 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2). Then, another facility performs a right breast lumpectomy (operative note not available). Outside Facility: Right breast lumpectomy pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma .6cm (8500/3) multifocal DCIS .5cm greatest dimension tumor site right breast NOS.
Should we use Rule M12-Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant. Note: Each row in the table is a distinctly different histology. So would this be two primaries C50.5 (8504/2) and C50.9 (8500/3)?
","Abstract as multiple primaries using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M12 as these are separate, non-contiguous tumors on different rows in Table 3.
","2018" "20180078","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded and which rule applies for a single in situ tumor that is described as an encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) with conventional ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? See Discussion.
","Patient had a breast excision that proved a single tumor with no evidence of invasive carcinoma. The final diagnosis stated: Size (extent) of EPC DCIS: Spanning approximately 1.3 cm. The pathologist did not describe separate foci of DCIS; only one tumor comprised of both encapsulated papillary carcinoma and DCIS. The encapsulated papillary carcinoma was not described as invasive. The pathology noted: This case is best classified as EPC conventional DCIS. No conventional stromal invasion is identified. Solid Tumor Rule M2 confirms a single tumor is a single primary.
However, there does not appear to be an H Rule that instructs how to code histology. The Single Tumor: In Situ Only module, has only three H Rules and none of them apply to this case. The patient does not have Paget disease (H1), does not have a single histology (H2, there are multiple histologies present as DCIS and EPC are listed on different rows in Table 3) and does not have DCIS and LCIS (H3). How does one arrive at the correct histology for this case?
","Code histology to 8500/2. Per April 2019 update: Rule H5 applies: Code DCIS 8500/2 when there is a combination of DCIS and any other carcinoma in situ.
The 4th Ed WHO Tumors of the Breast states that tumors with encapsulated papillary carcinoma in situ in the absence of DCIS in the surrounding tissue have a very favorable prognosis. Only tumors without DCIS should be coded to 8504/2. The component of DCIS will determine treatment.
","2018" "20180077","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: How is histology coded for a p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue? Is p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive (8085)? See Discussion.
","Table 6 (Tumors of the Oropharynx, Base of Tongue, Tonsils, Adenoids) in the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions lists both squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative as subtypes/variants of squamous cell carcinoma (the NOS histology, 8070). Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive and squamous cell carcinoma HPV-negative are also listed in the 2018 ICD-O-3 update table.
Previous clarification from the standard setters regarding the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table indicated that histology codes 8085 and 8086 (HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma, respectively) included p16+ and p16- squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. Presumably, this clarification was made because p16 is a surrogate marker for HPV, and capturing whether a tumor is HPV-related or not has implications for staging for 2018 and later diagnoses. However, this clarification was not added to the 2018 ICD-O-3 Update table via errata, nor do the Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions or Histology Coding Rules address this.
Is a diagnosis of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma equivalent to a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive (8085)? If so, will this clarification be added to the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules?
","HPV-positive is not equivalent to HPV-mediated (p16+). According to the 2018 SEER Manual, HPV-type 16 refers to virus type and is different from p16 overexpression (p16+). HPV status is determined by tests designed to detect viral DNA or RNA. Tests based on ISH, PCR, RT-PCR technologies detect the viral DNA or RNA; whereas, the test for p16 expression, a surrogate marker for HPV, is IHC. HPV testing must be positive by viral detection tests in order to code histology as 8085.
","2018" "20180076","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Head & Neck: Where does cytology rank on the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology for Head and Neck primaries? See Discussion.
","Cytology is not listed in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology (Histology Coding Rules) in the Head and Neck schema. Other schemas do include cytology in the hierarchy below tissue from a biopsy or resection. Cytology is often less specific than histology, so one would expect cytology to be listed below tissue in this hierarchy. Was this an oversight? Or would cytology be equivalent to histology if it provided the most specific histology for the case?
","Instruction #5 in the Priority Order for Using Documentation to Identify Histology of the Head and Neck Solid Tumor Rules, Item 5.B., refers to cytology in the documentation though cytology is not listed before this. In H&N tumors, cytology is usually performed on lymph nodes and seldom on a primary tumor. Cytology will be added to H&N in the next update.
","2018" "20180074","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: Rule M6 notes a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is a new primary when it follows a diagnosis of a glial or astrocytic tumor. Does this rule apply if the subsequent diagnosis was just, glioblastoma, NOS or one of the subtypes/variants of glioblastoma multiforme? See Discussion.
","Glioblastoma multiforme is listed as a synonym for the preferred term glioblastoma, NOS (9440) per Table 3 Column 2. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS would be a new primary if it followed a glial or astrocytic tumor. However, in general, the Solid Tumor Rules use the preferred terminology and/or indicate when a specific rule also includes any tumor diagnosed as a subtype/variant. Rule M6 does not explicitly include a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS or any of its subtypes/variants (e.g., glioblastoma IDH-mutant or gliosarcoma). Does Rule M6 apply to any diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS and any of its synonyms or subtypes/variants?
","Apply Malignant Central Nervous System Solid Tumor Rule M6 that refers to glioblastoma multiforme and abstract multiple primaries. If glioblastoma, NOS, an associated synonym with the same histology (9440/3), follows a glial or astrocytic tumor, Rule M6 applies.
With the identification of new variants of glioblastoma based on genetic profiles, we will likely see fewer diagnosis of GBM. M6 applies to cases where the subsequent/new tumor is specifically stated to be GBM, NOS.
","2018" "20180071","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Cervix uteri: What is the correct histology code for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor (MMMT/Carcinosarcoma)? See Discussion.
","An endometrial cancer was diagnosed in 2018. The endometrial biopsy showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (MMMT/Carcinosarcoma). The total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy showed Endometrial Carcinosarcoma (50% serous carcinoma, 50% high grade sarcoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation) with invasion of 100% of the myometrium and involvement of the uterine serosa. I am not finding this in the Solid Tumor Rules or the site-specific ICD-O-3 code lists.
","According to the WHO Classificationof Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition, MMMT (8950/3) is now a synonym for carcinosarcoma (8980/3) even though it has a separate ICD-O code. The ICD-O code for MMMT is no longer in the WHO book. Per the subject matter experts, when both terms are used in the diagnosis (carcinosarcoma/MMMT), code the histology to 8980/3. If the ONLY term used is MMMT, assign 8950/3.
The information in the 4th edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs has not yet been incorporated into the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules.
","2018" "20180070","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: The Histology coding guidelines for lung cancer state to code histology when stated as type or subtype but not to code when described as pattern. How should the histology be coded (Adeno, NOS or Adeno, Mixed subtypes) if the College of Americal Pathologists Protocol of the pathology report lists the following: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma, papillary (90%), lepidic (8%), and solid (2%) patterns?
","","The term/modifier ""patterns"" is no longer allowed to code a specific histology according to the Lung Solid Tumor H rules. Disregard the papillary, lepidic, and solid patterns and code histology to adenocarcinoma, NOS (8140/3).
","2018" "20180069","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Behavior--Brain and CNS: The Behavior coding instructions in the Non-Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) Equivalent Terms and Definitions section refer to Table 1 for help coding behavior when the other priority order instructions do not apply; however, the behavior cannot be reasonably determined using Table 1 alone for all WHO Grade I neoplasms. Should an additional default, such as the ICD-O-3 or Tables 5 and 6, be used to determine behavior? See Discussion.
","Similar to an issue previously submitted SINQ 20180063, Table 1 (WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms) in the Non-Malignant CNS Equivalent Terms and Definitions section states WHO Grade I tumors are always non-malignant. However, this does not mean that the tumors listed in Table 1 as WHO Grade I are always benign (/0). Some tumors listed with a WHO Grade I have a behavior of /1 (borderline) per the ICD-O-3 and/or Tables 5 and 6. The Behavior coding instructions do not currently indicate these are the appropriate sources to use when the pathologist and/or physician do not comment on the behavior of these tumors. In our area, pathologists do not explicitly state the behavior for these tumors; the pathologist only assigns the WHO Grade.
","There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior.
The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors
Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present.
","2018" "20180066","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How is laterality coded for bilateral non-malignant central nervous system (CNS) or malignant CNS tumors now that laterality is no longer used to identify these tumors as multiple primaries? See Discussion.
","The Equivalent Terms and Definitions sections in the Solid Tumor Rules for these schemas identify which sites must have laterality coded, but there is no instruction for coding laterality when bilateral tumors are a single primary. The SEER Manual currently only indicates code 4 (bilateral) is seldom used (e.g., bilateral ovarian tumors, Wilms tumors, etc.) but does not indicate laterality code 4 should be used for CNS tumors. Is this note going to be updated or should a non-bilateral code be applied?
Example: MRI demonstrates multiple left-sided dural-based meningiomas including a 4.4 cm left posterior fossa meningioma, a 0.8 cm left frontal-parietal meningioma and a right posterior frontal meningioma. The large left posterior fossa meningioma was resected and proved atypical meningioma. Should the laterality be 4 (bilateral) as the patient had both left and right-sided meningiomas confirmed to be a single primary? Or should the laterality be coded as 2 (left) since only the large left-sided meningioma was proven to be a borderline tumor (atypical meningioma, 9539/1) and the others were benign?
","Determine whether the CNS tumors are single or multiple primaries. Multiple cerebral meningiomas are a single primary according to the non-malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules. Assign laterality using the 2018 SEER Manual for select invasive, benign, and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors using codes 1-9 for all sites listed in the Sites for Which Laterality Codes Must Be Recorded table. In the example, assign code 4, bilateral involvement at time of diagnosis, lateral origin unknown for a single primary.
The solid tumor rules are not a one-stop-shop for all coding. Refer to the appropriate coding manual for laterality. We removed laterality for determining multiple primaries in meningiomas as they were being over-reported according to CBTRUS.
","2018" "20180065","Immunotherapy: Is immunotherapy ever palliative treatment according to any oncologists or SEER?
","","Any treatment that destroys or modifies cancer tissue should be recorded as the appropriate type of treatment -- chemo, immuno, etc. Even if immunotherapy is given for symptoms/palliative treatment, it is likely to kill off tumor cells.
","2018" "20180064","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion.
","A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a ""recurrence"" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 ""recurrence"" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?
","This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis.
","2018" "20180062","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a lymph node excisional biopsy shows Nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL), predominantly in diffuse T-cell histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma-like (THRLBCL) pattern. Comment states: The findings are that of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma with diffuse T-cell rich pattern (T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like). This variant is regarded as clinically more advanced. See Discussion.
","It appears an argument could be made for both NLPHL (9659/3) and THRLBCL (9688/3). We favor coding NLPHL (9659/3) because the pathologist did specifically call this a Hodgkin lymphoma, and also specified that it only has a T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma-like pattern.
","Assign histology code 9659/3. According to the Hematopoietic database, this histology frequently has T-cells. The other description was not an actual histology, but noting that the appearance of the cells was similar to that histology.
","2018" "20180061","Primary Site: How should primary site be coded when there is an invasive tumor in one subsite and an in situ tumor in another subsite of the breast? See Discussion.
","The previous SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual included Appendix C that has Coding Guidelines for some sites. The breast guidelines specifically instructed one to code the subsite with the invasive tumor when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites. The current Breast Solid Tumor Rules Table 1: Primary Site Codes refers one back to the SEER Manual and COC Manual for a source document priority list but does not make mention of invasive vs. in situ on that final version of the source document.
In addition, the Colon Solid Tumor Rules currently contains no Site Coding Section/Table. However, the Lung Solid Tumor Rules do and also refer one to the SEER/COC Manuals for document priority lists. The Urinary Solid Tumor Rules has both the Primary Site Codes Table and an additional section called Priority for Coding Primary Site, which does not reference a document priority list or other manuals. Unfortunately, there is additional information in Appendix C Bladder Coding Guidelines that may have been used in the past regarding site source priority.
Could the remaining applicable Appendix C information be consolidated into the Solid Tumor Rules consistently among all the sites to lessen the need for additional manual referencing? Also, is there a reason one site includes the Priority Site Coding instructions and others do not?
","Code the subsite with the invasive tumor as the primary site when the pathology report identifies invasive tumor in one subsite and in situ tumor in a different subsite or subsites as stated in Appendix C, Breast Coding Guidelines, 2018 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. This statement is unchanged from the previous version; however, the priority list was modified for coding a subsite when there is conflicting information.
The focus of the Solid Tumor Rules is to differentiate between single vs. multiple primaries and to assist with identifying the appropriate histology code. The site tables in the solid tumor rules are a reference only. The site-specific Coding Guidelines assist with additional considerations when abstracting cases.
","2018" "20180057","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: Which Solid Tumor H Rule applies when the patient has a single tumor removed by transurethral resection of bladder tumor and the final diagnosis is: Carcinoma of the bladder with the following features: Histologic type: Urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Instruction number 1 under the Coding Multiple Histologies instructions states to code histology when the histology is described as subtype, type or variant. The general rules do indicate we can code the histology identified as type, but when applying the H Rules, it seems an argument could be made for either H1 or H3. H1 applies if you ignore the diagnosis of carcinoma and only code the histologic type: urothelial carcinoma. However, the rules do seem to imply that you take all histologies into account (e.g., code the subtype/variant when there is a not otherwise specified (NOS) and single subtype/variant). Following this logic, Rule H3 seems to be the only rule that fits, and one would code the subtype/variant urothelial carcinoma when the diagnosis is carcinoma NOS, histologic type: urothelial carcinoma.
The problem is that urothelial carcinoma is not a subtype/variant of carcinoma (NOS) per Table 2. The entry for Carcinoma NOS in Table 2 states, Subtypes of carcinoma NOS include adenocarcinoma and all subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma. To some, urothelial carcinoma is a more specific type of carcinoma; however, urothelial carcinoma is not also listed as a subtype of carcinoma or of adenocarcinoma; only adenocarcinoma is categorized as a subtype of carcinoma. Consistently applying the rules becomes an issue when rules are interpreted in different ways. Should this Table be amended to include urothelial carcinoma as a subtype/variant of carcinoma NOS with the same caveat given to adenocarcinoma in Table 2?
","Code the most specific histology or subtype/variant. Urothelial carcinoma is more specific than carcinoma. See instruction #1 on page 29 of the April 2019 update.
","2018" "20180056","Primary Site--Ovary: How should primary site be coded for a previously diagnosed ovarian cancer which is now being reclassified as fallopian tube? See Discussion.
","There is a group of patients diagnosed within the past few years with ovarian cancers who are now enrolled in a clinical trial and are being screened as potential patients for a particular protocol. The screening for these particular cases is being done by a pathologist who has a particular interest in GYN pathology. As the pathologist is screening the cases, there are some which the pathologist is reclassifying as being fallopian tube primaries rather than ovarian primaries. This is apparently due to newly emerging findings and literature. The problem for me is that these cases have been entered into the registry as ovarian primaries, which was correct as of the time of the initial diagnosis. Should the abstracts remain as they were initially coded, since the diagnosis was ovarian cancer at the time they were diagnosed, or should these cases be updated to reflect the current pathologist's interpretation that these are fallopian tube primaries?
","Do not change the primary site in this situation. Since the review was done for a clinical trial and the change was not officially made in the patient's medical record, the primary site remains ovary for the cancer registry. Add an explanatory note in a text field for future reference.
","2018" "20180054","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Bladder: Under the Terms that are Not Equivalent or Equal section (Urinary Equivalent Terms and Definitions) it indicates noninvasive is not equivalent to papillary urothelial carcinoma and one should code the histology documented by the pathologist. However, many pathologists use Ta as both the description of the stage and the histology. Should this note be amended? See Discussion.
","The note in the Urinary Terms and Definition states, Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist. While it is true that both Ta and Tis are technically noninvasive, the AJCC defines Ta specifically for, A pathologist's use of Ta does indicate the noninvasive carcinoma did arise from a papillary tumor. However, not all pathologists use terminology that, following the Urinary Solid Tumor Histology Coding Rules, will result in a histology coded to 8130, despite an AJCC-defined Ta (noninvasive papillary carcinoma) tumor having been diagnosed because the tumor projected from the wall on a stalk.
In our region a number of pathologists provide the following types of diagnosis.
Histologic type: Noninvasive.
Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): High-grade.
Tumor configuration: Papillary.
The pathologist and/or physician may then stage this as Ta. How is the histology coded for these cases if the H Rules do not allow one to code the papillary and noninvasive Ta disease as not equivalent to noninvasive papillary carcinoma?
Flat (in situ) urothelial carcinoma has an increased risk of invasive disease compared to the noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. Will there be inconsistencies or a resulting impact to analysis of truly flat/in situ urothelial carcinoma vs. papillary urothelial carcinomas if the papillary tumors are not being coded as such?
","Per the April 2019 update: Noninvasive; papillary urothelial carcinoma; flat urothelial carcinoma Note: Noninvasive is not equivalent to either papillary urothelial or flat urothelial carcinoma. Both Ta and Tis tumors are technically noninvasive. Code the histology specified by the pathologist.
","2018" "20180050","Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis reportable? See Discussion.
","We noticed this term was added to the most recent version of the Heme Database (DB) as an alternate name for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; however we do not recall being notified that this was a new reportable term for code 9823 and the term was not included in the 2018 ICD-O-3 Histology updates. The Definition in the Heme DB for Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic leukemia (CLL/SLL) includes information that the term was added in the 2016 WHO revision, thus would be reportable back to 2016, is that correct? In addition, the Definition seems to be describing it as a precursor condition to CLL and may never actually evolve into CLL, so it is unclear if this term should really be reportable.
Example: 09/08/2016 Onc Note: A/P: monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL): I reviewed with him the results of the bone marrow biopsy. Interestingly, there is no evidence of abnormal plasma cell population by flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry. Nevertheless, flow cytometry does demonstrate a very small population of abnormal and monoclonal B-cell lymphocyte population with immunophenotype consistent with CLL/SLL. Given the very low number of the abnormal B cells, this can be categorized as monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). I recommend surveillance visit in one year.
9/12/2017 Onc note: A/P: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis of undetermined significance (MBL) and IgM MGUS. No symptoms concerning for active disease or progression. Explained that MBL is a very indolent process. Patients with CLL-phenotype MBL progress to CLL at a rate of ~1-2 percent per year. Follow-up in 1 year. Is this case reportable?
","Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not a reportable condition. This term will be removed from 9823/3 since it is a /1 (has it's own code). This will become much more clear once we get the new WHO Heme terms into the database.
","2018" "20180049","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the difference between Lung Rules H7 and H8 (Single Tumor Module)? When would one use H8 rather than H7? See Discussion.
","Is Rule H8 a duplicate of Rule H7? Rule H7 instructs one to use Table 2 when there are multiple histologies and the combination is listed in Table 2 (or a combination code was received from Ask a SEER Registrar). Rule H8 states to code adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes (8255) when there are multiple adenocarcinoma subtypes OR any combination of histologies which are not listed in Table 2. However, both conditions for Rule H8 are already included in Table 2 (the last row). How would one ever move past Rule H7 if all the conditions for both Rules H7 and H8 are covered first under Rule H7?
Example: A resection pathology report proves invasive adenocarcinoma, acinar, solid and papillary types. Rule H7 seems to be the first H Rule that applies as there are multiple histologies (identified using a reportable term: type) AND the combination is listed in Table 2. The last row of Table 2 instructs one to code Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes (8255) when there are at least two of the subtypes/variants of adenocarcinoma listed in Column 1 (Required Terms). In this case, there were three subtypes/variants that are listed in Column 1 (acinar, solid and papillary). However, Rule H8 also instructs one to, Which rule applies here, Rule H7 or Rule H8?
","January 2019 update: The differences between H7 and H8 are H8 applies to tumors with multiple subtypes of adenocarcinoma while H7 applies to histology combinations other than adenocarcinoma such as adeno and squamous.
","2018" "20180047","Reportability--Kidney: Is a hybrid oncocytic tumor reportable? See Discussion.
","10/27/2017 partial nephrectomy final path diagnosis: renal oncocytic neoplasm, favor hybrid oncocytic tumor. Comment:
","Do not report renal HTOC. According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""the genetic studies seem to indicate that the chromosomal changes of chromophobe renal carcinoma are not found in the hybrid tumors.""
","2018" "20180045","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: The Histology Coding Instructions for breast cancer indicate the term type is not used to code histology unless documented to be greater than or equal to 90% of the tumor. Does this also apply if the format of pathology reports submitted in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol from a specific facility always describes the histology under the heading, Histologic type: ___? See Discussion.
","For certain facilities in our area, the breast pathology reports using a CAP protocol format are formatted as follows; the Final Diagnosis will state Infiltrating carcinoma with the following features. The features list the specific tumor characteristics required in the CAP protocol formatting. The histology is always displayed in the list form and specified as Histologic type: (for example, Histologic type: Ductal carcinoma). Is this specific histology really to be ignored because it is preceded by the word type even if this is just a consequence of the pathology report formatting?
","In the CAP protocol, the term Histologic Type is a label where the histology that corresponds to the largest carcinoma is collected. According to the CAP protocol for invasive breast cancer, the histologic type corresponds to the largest carcinoma. If there are smaller carcinomas of a different type, this information should be included under ""Additional Pathologic Findings."" The findings noted in the Final Diagnosis, Histologic Type, and Additional Path Findings of the protocol should be used to determine the histology.
When there are multiple histologies and
1) the subtype or variant is listed as 90% when there is a Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) and a subtype, or
2) the subtype/variant histology reflects the majority of the tumor when there are two or more different histologies (two or more distinct subtypes)
Code the subtype/variant; otherwise, use the Specific and Not Otherwise Specified/No Specific Type (NOS/NST) Terms and Code listed in Table 2 (columns 1 and 2) of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer.
","2018" "20180043","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: Can the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol be used to determine whether in situ tumor is present for the purpose of determining which H Rule applies in the example presented? See Discussion.
","The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?
Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,
","Apply Rule H12 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer, released April 2019. Remember the protocol is a checklist only and should not be used to code histology unless it is the only document available.
","2018" "20180040","Reportability--Kidney: Is congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma reportable for a newborn baby? See discussion.
","2015 Rt kidney nephrectomy pathology states: congenital cellular mesoblastic nephroma, tumor sz 5.9cm, tumor limited to kidney, extension into pelvicalyceal system, margin not applicable, LVI negative. Per PubMed.gov: (In newborns) among the low-grade malignant tumors, congenital mesoblastic nephromas can be successfully treated with simple nephrectomy. Per ScienceDirect: ...currently thought that cellular mesoblastic nephroma is actually a renal variant of infantile fibrosarcoma.
","Do not report congenital mesoblastic nephroma (8960/1). Congenital mesoblastic mephromas are low-grade fibroblastic neoplasms of the infantile renal sinus according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. The WHO classification is the standard used to determine behavior and histology for entities not listed in ICD-O-3.
","2018" "20180039","Solid Tumor Rules 2018/Histology--Testis: What is the histology code for a 2018 diagnosis of left testis tumor diagnosed as mixed germ cell tumor with secondary malignant components: primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and rhabdomyosarcoma? See Discussion.
","The patient has testicular cancer with bilateral lung metastases and possible liver metastasis. The left orchiectomy final diagnosis was The Summary describes a single tumor that is, Germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) is also present. Although there is mixed germ cell tumor present, the PNET component of the tumor is locally invasive extending into the epididymis, hilar soft tissues, spermatic cord, and tunica vaginalis. The mixed germ cell tumor is limited to the testis only.
We are instructed not to use to the term to code histology in the MP/H Rules General Instructions (Other Site Rules not updated for 2018), however the PNET comprises the majority of this tumor and represents the most extensive disease. Should the PNET histology be ignored in this case as its a ?
","Assign code 9084/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a teratoma with a somatic-type malignancy. This code is the best choice even though it does not capture the mixed germ cell elements of the tumor, or the character of the somatic component (rhadomyosarcoma, PNET).There aren't enough histology code numbers to cover all of the possibilities. Use text fields to describe the specifics of this case.
","2018" "20180038","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported when a 10/10/2017 skin biopsy identified myeloid sarcoma with monocytic differentiation, clinically stated to be leukemia cutis is followed by an 11/2/2017 BM biopsy showing an evolving high grade myelodysplastic process with atypical monocytes, likely an early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML), clinically stated to be a therapy-related AML (9920/3)? See Discussion.
","Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously.
","The leukemia cutis is secondary to leukemia that is already present. This is multiple disease processes going on at the same time. Look for more information on this case. Is there any previous diagnosis of MDS, leukemia, or some other disease that would result in a treatment related AML?
If no further information can be found, abstract one primary with 9920/3.
","2018" "20180037","Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy?
","","Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis.
","2018" "20180035","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted in this 2018 lung case? See Discussion.
","CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct?
","Abstract one primary per Rule M7. Follow the Lung Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries. The AJCC TNM manual is used for staging. Do not apply AJCC instructions to determine the number of primaries.
","2018" "20180034","Reportability--Vulva: Is a biopsy showing high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (VIN II) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See Discussion.
","In comparison to SINQ 20180022, this case does not mention VIN III anywhere in the final diagnosis. Is any mention of HGSIL in the final diagnosis reportable, even if it is qualified with a non-reportable term in parenthesis or CAP protocol?
","Since this HSIL diagnosis is specified as VIN II, do not report it.
WHO includes both VIN II and VIN III as synonyms for HSIL of the vulva. HSIL is reportable and VIN III is reportable. VIN II is not reportable.
","2018" "20180033","Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) reportable? See Discussion.
","Spindled cell lesion of smooth muscle origin (desmin and SMA are positive, CD34, S100, pancytokeratin, Pax8, MDM2 and CDK4 are negative). Many of the cells have hyperchromatic, bizarre-shaped nuclei. Mitotic activity is inconspicuous. There are no areas of necrosis. The overall findings in this biopsy is best classified as a ""STUMP""; however, a leiomyosarcoma cannot be excluded.
","STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) is not reportable. According to the WHO classification of uterine corpus tumors, the behavior code for STUMP is /1.
","2018" "20180032","Reportability--Appendix: Is low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) reportable for 2018? It is staged as pTis(LAMN) AJCC 8th ed by pathologist.
","","Low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable in 2018. See page 6, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-ICD-O-3-Coding-Table-Alpha-order-.pdf. Use cancer registry reportability instructions to determine reportability. Do not use the AJCC TNM manual to determine reportability.
","2018" "20180031","First Course of Treatment/Other Therapy: Where do you code Optune TTF therapy? What needs to be included in the text portion to document this treatment?
","","Code OPTUNE in the Other Treatment field. See NovaTTF in SEER*Rx (http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/). NovaTTF is the pre-FDA approval name for OPTUNE.
If OPTUNE was administered for recurrence, be sure NOT to record it in the first course of treatment fields. Check with CoC if you have questions about coding treatment for recurrence.
","2018" "20180030","First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: How do you code UVB therapy treatment for melanoma?
","","Code UVB therapy for melanoma as photodynamic therapy under Surgery of Primary Site for skin. Assign code 11 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is no pathology specimen. Assign code 21 [Photodynamic therapy (PDT)] if there is a pathology specimen. Use text fields to document details.
","2018" "20180029","Reportability--Skin: Is early/evolving lentigo maligna reportable?
","","As of 01/01/2021, early or evolving melanoma in situ, or any other early or evolving melanoma, is reportable.
","2018" "20180026","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a prophylactic mastectomy reveals a final diagnosis of invasive tubular carcinoma, but the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Protocol includes ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) sized separately and it is not clear if these are different tumors? See Discussion.
","The patient was incidentally diagnosed with cancer on a prophylactic mastectomy, so there are no positive imaging findings to correlate the number of tumors/masses. The final diagnosis was invasive tubular carcinoma, and referred to the CAP Protocol. The CAP notes: However, it does not specify whether the single contiguous focus also includes the in situ component. The CAP goes on to note DCIS was present: The gross description does not provide any indication of either a single or multiple tumors/masses/lesions, though it was referred to as ""Lesion 1"" in the gross description with no indication of other lesions.
The format of the CAP Protocol frequently does not specify whether the DCIS is a separate measured tumor, or if it is a component of the invasive tumor. This makes it difficult to determine whether the DCIS should be a separate primary when the invasive tumor is not also a type of ductal carcinoma. Per both the 2007 MP/H and 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, an invasive tubular carcinoma and a ductal carcinoma in situ would be multiple primaries if they were multiple tumors. Should we default to Rule M1: Abstract a single primary when it is not possible to determine if there is a single or multiple tumors? Or should we assume these are separate tumors because they were both sized, the focality only described a single invasive tumor, and the tumors are not both ductal carcinomas?
","Accession a single primary using Solid Tumor Rule M3. Based on the information provided, this was described as ""Lesion 1' with no other lesions noted in the gross description. If the DCIS was a separate tumor, this would have been noted by the pathologist.
Reminder, the breast CAP protocol is a checklist for pathologists to note their findings while reviewing the slides and/or specimen. The findings and notes should be consolidated into a final/synoptic report.
","2018" "20180024","Primary site--Colon: What is the correct topography code for appendiceal orifice? See Discussion.
","From a number of definitions reviewed, it seems unclear if it's part of the appendix or the cecum of the colon. For example: The cecum is usually located in the right iliac fossa. In the pole of the cecum, there is often the appearance of fusion of the three teniae coli around the appendix, giving rise to the tri-radiate fold (Mercedes Benz sign), but the anatomy can be variable. The most reliable landmarks of the cecum are the appendiceal orifice and ileocecal valve. The appendiceal orifice is usually an unimpressive slit, often crescentic in shape. The ileocecal valve is made up of the superior and inferior lips (usually not seen en face) and is the gateway leading into the terminal ileum. It is located on the prominent ileocecal fold encircling the cecum, between 3 and 5 cm distal to the cecal pole. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212097113701730)
","Assign C180, Cecum, when the neoplasm originates in the appendiceal orifice. The appendiceal orifice is a landmark in the cecum. During colonoscopy, visualization of the appendiceal orifice indicates that the entire colon was examined, from the anus to the cecum.
","2018" "20180023","Reportability/Behavior: Is myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) reportable for 2018? This histology is on the 2018 ICD-O-3 histology update list with a behavior code of /1. See discussion.
","This will be a tough one for registrars to recognize as non-reportable since the terminology contains sarcoma, so we just want to double check.
","Myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) (C49._), 8811/1, is not reportable for 2018 based on the 2018 ICD-O-3 New Codes, Behaviors, and Terms list. This is a new histology/behavior not previously listed in ICD-O-3. According to the WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Soft Tissue & Bone, this histology has been given a benign (/1) behavior; however, if the pathologist and/or physician state the tumor is malignant or metastatic, report the case and assign behavior code /3.
","2018" "20180022","Reportability/Histology: Is a focal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL/moderate to severe dysplasia/VIN II-III) in the vulva reportable for cases diagnosed in 2018? See discussion.
","Since high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) is reportable for the vulva in 2018 (per SINQ 20130185) but VIN II-III is not reportable, we need to clarify this reporting format seen in our area.
","Report when stated to be high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion of the vulva. The 2018 SEER Manual says to assign 8077/2. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III for vulva and vagina only.
","2018" "20180021","Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Corpus uteri: What is the correct histology code for ""Mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma"" of the corpus uteri?"" See Discussion.
","The article I read (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28984674) makes the distinction between mesophrenic adenocarcinoma and mesophrenic-like adenocarcinoma. The authors propose the term mesonephric-like Mullerian adenocarcinoma. So would this be coded as Mullerian adenocarcinoma?
","Assign code 9110/3, mesonephric adenocarcinoma. These tumors commonly arise in the cervical wall and more commonly involve the lower uterine segment than do other cervical adenocarcinomas.
","2018" "20180019","Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion.
","The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.
Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?
1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).
2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.
3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.
","Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information.
Examples
1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation.
The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors.
2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1.
3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2.
Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license.
","2018" "20180018","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How should histology be coded for the following 2017 cases (pituitary adenoma vs. prolactinoma)? See Discussion.
","1. (2017) Pituitary mass resection with a path diagnosis of
Do we code as prolactinoma when the tumor is immunoreactive for prolactin or must there be a definitive statement of ?
2. (2017) Pituitary lesion on imaging, MD diagnosis of
Current (2007) MP/H rule H9 states when there are multiple histologies in the same branch in Chart 1, code the more specific histology. These histologies are NOT in Chart 1, but prolactinoma seems to be a more specific type of pituitary adenoma. The next rule, H10 states to code the numerically higher code, 8272/0 (pituitary adenoma)?
3. (2017) Imaging diagnosis of pituitary macroadenoma with clinical diagnosis by MD of macroprolactinoma.
Current rules indicate when there is no path specimen that physician reference to type of tumor has priority over imaging.
Will these answers/histologies change with the upcoming 2018 Solid Tumor rules?
","Code each of these 2017 cases as prolactinoma (8271/0), the more specific histology.
If these cases were diagnosed in 2018, the answer would be the same: code as prolactinoma.
","2018" "20180016","Primary site--Pancreas: Is the uncinate process of the pancreas coded to C259, C250, or C257?
","","Assign C250 to the uncinate process of the pancreas. The uncinate process is part of the head of the pancreas.
","2018" "20180015","Histology--Ovary: What is the correct ICD-O-3 histology code for sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary?
","","Assign 8380/3. Sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma is a variant of endometrioid carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant.
","2018" "20180014","Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum reportable, and if so, is the histology coded as 9492/0? See Discussion.
","Patient diagnosed with multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. My research shows: Multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum is a recently reported benign, mixed glial neuronal lesion that is included in the 2016 updated World Health Organization classification of brain neoplasms as a unique cytoarchitectural pattern of gangliocytoma. There is no code in ICD-O-3 for it, so do I report it and use 9492/0 or not ?
","Do not report multinodular and vacuolating neuronal tumor of the cerebrum. At this time, WHO is undecided about whether this is a neoplastic or a hamartomatous/malformative process. If WHO makes a determination that this is a neoplastic process, we will update reportability instructions and ICD-O-3 guidelines for registrars.
","2018" "20180013","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are tuberous sclerosis cancers found in the brain reportable? See Discussion.
","I have searched ICD-O-3 for a histology listing but could not locate. I also searched the SEER Inquiry database for possible answers, but none were found. The patient underwent a pediatric MRI of the brain of which final impression was: 1) Subependymoma nodules, cortical tubers, and SEGAs are seen bilaterally consistent with tuberous sclerosis.
","SEGA (Subependymal giant cell astrocytoma) is reportable if diagnosed in 2004 or later. Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is not a neoplasm and is not reportable. SEGA is a neoplasm that commonly occurs in TSC patients.
Refer to the reportability instructions on pages 5-7 in the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf
","2018" "20180012","First course of treatment: What is the correct code to use for allogenic stem cell transplant?
","","Code an allogenic stem cell transplant as 20 (Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion) in Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures in the 2016 SEER Manual.
","2018" "20180010","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Diagnostic Confirmation coded as 5 (positive laboratory test/ marker study) or code 8 (clinical diagnosis only) for a case that has a positive JAK2 mutation, and based on the results of the JAK2, the physician diagnosed the patient with polycythemia vera? There were no blood smears or bone marrow biopsies done.
","","Assign diagnostic confirmation code 5 for a positive laboratory test/marker study. A note was added to the Hematopoietic manual to state that code 5 now includes cases with no histological confirmation but there is positive immunophenotyping or genetic studies.
","2018" "20180009","Reportability--Head & Neck: Is dentinoameloblastoma reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See Discussion.
","Mixed odontogenic tumor consistent with dentinoameloblastoma, 9.5 cm, See Note: Tumor involves maxillary bone including hard palate, alveolar ridges, nasal cavities and maxillary sinuses bilaterally and buccal soft tissue. Lymphovascular invasion not identified. Perineural invasion not identified. Margins: Tumor involves right posterior bone (alveolar) margin. All other margins negative. Note: This is a rare hybrid tumor showing features of ameloblastoma producing pre-dentin/osteodentin matrix. Submucosal tumor is seen in the nasal cavities and palate. A congo red stain shows that the acellular dentin-like matrix fluoresces similar to collagen after polarization. Immunohistochemistry shows that the tumor cells are diffusely and strongly positive for p63, focally positive for CK19, and negative for CK5/6, SOX10, S100 and calretinin.
","Dentinoameloblastoma is not reportable. It is a variant of ameloblastoma which produces dentin and/or osteoid. It is benign. It can extend locally in a rather aggressive fashion, but is not given a malignant designation unless it metastasizes.
","2018" "20180008","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: Is medullary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid, with foci of papillary microcarcinoma in both lobes, one primary with mixed histology (8347/3) or two separate primaries?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
Abstract two primaries, Medullary (8510/3) and papillary microcarcinoma (8260/3). Other sites rule M17 applies.
","2018" "20180007","Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are plasmacytomas in thyroid and laryngeal masses one primary based on rule M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology? If so, what is the primary site? See Discussion.
","Patient presented with hoarseness and palpable neck mass. No palpable adenopathy (per hospital abstract).
02/19/16 Thyroid Ultrasound: Right thyroid lobe with mass, 63X35X44XMM (per hospital abstract).
06/01/16 Right thyroid lobectomy, radical resection right laryngeal tumor (per hospital abstract).
06/01/16 Operative Procedure: Tumor was invading laryngeal soft tissue and cartilage anteriorly and to the right. There may be a small amount of residual tumor invading cartilage although this was not clear (per hospital abstract).
GROSS DESCRIPTION: 1. The specimen is received fresh for intraoperative consultation, labeled with the patient's name and ""right thyroid mass."" It consists of a 3.0 x 2.2 x 2.0 cm irregular, ragged fragment of tan-red, firm, rubbery soft tissue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a tan-red, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. A touch prep is performed. A representative section is submitted for frozen section analysis in 1FSA. A portion of tissue is submitted for flow cytometry with the accession number MSO-16-1786. The remaining specimen is entirely submitted in 4 additional cassettes (1B-1E). 2. The specimen is received in formalin and is labeled ""right thyroid lobe."" It consists of a thyroid lobe measuring 4.3 x 4.0 x 1.3 cm and weighing 10.0 g. The external surface is covered by a thin fibrous capsule with a focal area of roughening on the posterior surface. The lobe is inked black posterior, blue anterior and orange isthmus margin. Serial sectioning reveals a red-brown and beefy parenchyma. A definitive nodule is not grossly identified. The entire specimen is serially submitted from superior to inferior in 9 cassettes. 3. The specimen is received in formalin, labeled with the patient's name and ""right neck/laryngeal mass."" It consists of an irregular, focally nodular red-tan mass measuring 7.0 x 5.5 x 4.0 cm and weighing 54 g. The convex portion of the specimen is mostly encapsulated with focal adherent red-brown striated skeletal muscle. The concave portion of the specimen is focally ragged and disrupted. The convex portion of the specimen is inked black and the concave portion is inked blue. The specimen is serially sectioned to reveal a white-grey to red, granular, gritty cut surface with focal fleshy areas. Representative sections are submitted in 12 cassettes.
Final DX DIAGNOSIS: 1. Right thyroid mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 3 cm. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Recommend correlation with flow cytometry MSO-16-1786, monoclonal plasma cell population with cytoplasmic kappa positivity. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization. Congo red stain for amyloid negative. No thyroidal tissue identified. 2. Right thyroid lobe excision Benign thyroid tissue with focal solid cell nest negative for malignancy. One out of two 1/2 perithyroidal lymph nodes positive for plasma cell tumor. 3. Laryngeal mass excision Plasma cell tumor /plasmacytoma 7 cm involving soft tissue and skeletal muscle. Tumor cells are positive for kappa and negative for lambda immunostains. Ki-67 stains 7 percent of cells. Focal stromal hyalinization and calcification. Congo red stain for amyloid negative
","Abstract this case as a single primary. Hematopoietic Multiple Primary Rule M2 applies.
Code to unknown primary, C809, based on rule PH27. There is no indication in the information provided of the site of origin; therefore, PH2 cannot be used. We recommend a thorough review of the case to determine if the site of origin is identified in the medical record.
","2018" "20180006","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Should encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast with a separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ be coded as 8050/2 (papillary carcinoma) and staged as in situ? See Discussion.
","Pathology--Right breast, lumpectomy with needle localization: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast. A separate focus of ductal carcinoma in situ is present. Sentinel lymph node, right breast, biopsy: One lymph node, negative for malignancy. No metastatic carcinoma is seen on slides stained with immunostain for cytokeratin (AE1/AE3). Specimen laterality: Right. Tumor size: 1.2 cm. Histologic type: Encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Nuclear grade: Grade 1 (low). Mitotic rate: Score 1. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): DCIS is present. Estimated size (extent) of DCIS: 3 mm. Architectural patterns: Cribriform and papillary. Nuclear grade: grade 1 (low). Necrosis: Not identified. Margins: Margins uninvolved by encapsulated papillary carcinoma. Distance from closest margin: 8 mm, superior Margins uninvolved by DCIS. Distance from closest margin: 11 mm, superior Lymph nodes: Total number of lymph nodes examined (sentinel and nonsentinel): 1. Number of sentinel lymph nodes examined: 1. Number of lymph nodes with tumor cells: 0. Pathologic staging: Primary tumor: See comment. Regional lymph nodes: pN0(i-). Comment: In the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast (2012), it is stated that ""there is no universal agreement on how to stage encapsulated papillary carcinomas. In the absence of conventional invasive carcinoma, the consensus of the WHO Working Group was that such lesions should be staged and managed as Tis disease.""
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
Code as encapsulated papillary carcinoma, 8504/3; this is a synonym for intracystic carcinoma (WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast). Stage this case as invasive.
","2018" "20180004","Reportability/MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Is a ganglioneuroblastoma (9490/3) following a melanoma (8720/3) a new primary if the diagnosing pathologist states: ""Given the clinical context and patient age, then I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma'? If this is a new primary, what MP/H rule would apply? See Discussion.
","March 2017 lung biopsy showing metastatic melanoma. Subsequent workup shows imaging with additional metastatic involvement of multiple bone sites but no primary tumor is identified. Chemotherapy is started in May 2017.
July 2017 biopsy of right lower quadrant mass has a final diagnosis of ganglioneuroblastoma and pathologist's comment states I believe that this may represent transdifferentiation of metastatic melanoma. Later, partial colectomy of transverse colon Gross Description indicates this was centered in the mesentery.
","Abstract two primaries: 1. unknown primary site and 2. peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of abdomen, based on Multiple Primaries/Histology for Other Sites Rule M11 (topography codes that differ at the second or third character). While it is possible in rare cases that one tumor transforms into the other, transformations do not factor into the current MP/H rules.
","2018" "20180003","Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplams: Would you code the NOS term when follicular lymphoma is favored? What would diagnostic confirmation be coded if a positive fine needle aspirate (FNA) is followed by a positive flow cytometry (ambiguous term)? See Discussion.
","Pathology reads: 1. FNA left groin lymph node tissue (smears and cell block): B-cell lymphoma, low grade. The concurrent flow cytometry (3-FC-16-288) identifies a monoclonal B cell population with immunophenotype of CD10++, CD5-, CD23-, CD20++ and unusual CD19-. Overall findings favor follicular lymphoma. FNA Specimen Adequacy: Evaluation for specimen adequacy: Immediate cytology smear review for specimen adequacy was performed at the time of the FNA procedure by pathologist. Smears reviewed from 2 passes in one reading. The specimen was adequate cytological evaluation. Surg Path Final Report Special Studies Immunohistochemistry (CD45, MCK, CD20, CD3, CD10, Bcl6, MUM1 \T\ Ki67) was performed on block 1A to confirm the diagnosis. All controls show appropriate reaction. Lymphoma cells are positive for CD45, CD20, CD10 and weakly positive for bcl6(+) and MUM1(+/-), and negative for MCK. CD3 highlights few T lymphocytes. Ki67 labeling index is low, less than 10%. The immunoprofile supports above diagnosis. Chromosomal study for t(14;18) translocation will be performed, and an addendum report will follow. Flow Final Report Comment: The lymphoma appears to be derived from germinal centre B cells. Together with the findings from the lymph node biopsy (3-FN16-416), follicular lymphoma is favored. However, negative CD19 and CD22 are unusual.
","Code histology as follicular lymphoma, NOS (9690/3). The clinician rendered the diagnosis after review of all information available, including histology, cytology, and immunophenotyping markers.
Assign diagnostic confirmation code 1 based on histology. Diagnostic confirmation code 3 cannot be assigned in this case because the diagnosis included ambiguous terminology and the immunophenotyping is not unique to follicular lymphoma, NOS.
","2018" "20180002","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion.
","12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1)
1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1
11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma
5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma
9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma
10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case.
To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
","2018" "20180001","Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Small intestine: Is this case reportable? Widely metastatic gastrointestinal stomal tumor (GIST) was diagnosed at an out-of-state facility in 2017 and referred back to a hospital in our state for chemotherapy where there is a history of a small bowel resection of GIST of uncertain malignant potential (8936/1) doneat the hospital in 2003. If so, is the diagnosis date 2003 or 2017? See Discussion.
","The hospital registrar reports that the case was identified at the hospital because of the referral for chemotherapy for the metastatic GIST. The records from the out-of-state hospital mentioned a history of a small bowel resection in 2003 for a borderline tumor. The registrar went back through the hospital's old records and found the surgery was done for GIST of low malignant potential at her facility. The question is whether to report the case or not, and if reported, is 2003 the diagnosis date.
The rules say to change the behavior and backdate the diagnosiswhen a tumor is presumed benign and islater diagnosed as malignant. Another problem for this case is that the out-of-state hospital did not review the slides from the 2003 surgery.
","Report the case with a diagnosis date of 2017. The 2003 diagnosis was not reviewed, and there are no physician statements that cancer was present in 2003, or that the metastases are attributable to the 2003 diagnosis. Document the details of the case in text fields.
","2018" "20170081","Grade/Neuroblastoma: What grade is to be used when pathology states only differentiating retroperitoneal neuroblastoma?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
Assign grade code 2 for ""differentiating"" retroperitoneal neuroblastoma. The rationale of our expert pathologist advisor is that ""it leaves the grade 1 category open (since a ""well differentiated neuroblastoma"" is actually called ganglioneuroblastoma), and it also avoids putting ""differentiating"" into what is usually a well differentiated category.""
Additionally, assign grade code 3 to a poorly differentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma and grade code 4 to an undifferentiated retroperitoneal neuroblastoma.
For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
Follow the instructions for coding grade in SEER*RSA
","2017" "20170080","Reportability/Breast: Is lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) reportable? The eighth edition, American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual does not stage LCIS.
","","Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf
","2017" "20170079","Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus Uteri: Is surgery for a uterine corpus primary described as total abdominal hysterectomy-bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH-BSO) with specimens including uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, and bilateral parametria coded as a modified radical hysterectomy? It would be very helpful if an explanation of the difference between a total hysterectomy, modified radical hysterectomy, and radical hysterectomy can be included. See Discussion.
","Surgery text indicates TAH-BSO with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. The pathology report indicates the specimen includes: Uterine corpus, cervix, bilateral ovaries and fallopian tubes, bilateral parametria. The Gross Description also indicates: Representative sections submitted in 16 cassettes as follows: A1: Anterior cervix A2: Posterior cervix A3: Full thickness anterior lower uterine segment A4: Full thickness posterior lower uterine segment A5: Tumor A6-A7: Full thickness anterior endomyometrium to include tumor A8-A10: Full thickness posterior endomyometrium with tumor A11: Representative sections of right fallopian tube and fimbria A12: Representative sections of right ovary A13: Representative sections of left fallopian tube and fimbria A14: Representative sections of left ovary A15: Right parametrial tissue A16: Left parametrial tissue A17-23: Remainder of cervix.
","Assign code 50: total hysterectomy with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(ies). Removes both the corpus and cervix uteri. It may also include a portion of the vaginal cuff. Both the radical and modified radical hysterectomy (code 60) include removal of part of the vagina, not mentioned in the pathology or surgery text.
The SEER Glossary for Registrars defines the procedures as follows.
Total hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the entire uterus, including the cervix
Radical hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the uterus, cervix and part of the vagina. The ovaries, fallopian tubes and nearby lymph nodes may also be removed.
Modified radical hysterectomy: Surgery to remove the uterus, cervix, upper part of the vagina, and nearby ligaments and tissues. Nearby lymph nodes may also be removed. In this type of surgery, not as many tissues and/or organs are removed as in a radical hysterectomy.
https://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/glossary/
","2017" "20170078","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Lung: How do you code Regional Nodes Positive, Regional Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery when a fine needle aspirate (FNA) or biopsy of supraclavicular lymph nodes is positive for a lung cancer primary? Supraclavicular lymph nodes are distant in SEER Summary Stage and regional by AJCC. See Discussion.
","There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code ""1"" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?
","For cases diagnosed through 2017, use the Collaborative Staging (CS) system to determine regional versus distant lymph nodes. Supraclavicular lymph nodes are regional for lung in CS.
Please note that Summary Stage is not the same as EOD, CS, or AJCC staging. Registrars should not use Summary Stage definitions for anything other than directly assigning the Summary Stage field.
","2017" "20170077","First Course Treatment: Should the definition in the 2016 SEER Coding Manual be revised for first course of treatment following disease progression for patients who complete the initial first course treatment plan without alteration but had one or more treatment modalities given after disease progression was identified? See Discussion.
","The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.
SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)
For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?
","The example cited above will not be included in the 2018 edition of the SEER manual. Removing this example will improve the consistency in recording first course of treatment for cases diagnosed 2018 and later.
","2017" "20170076","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is meningioma with atypical features coded as meningioma (9530/0) or atypical meningioma (9539/1)? See Discussion.
","Pathology report microscopic description: The tumor is a meningothelial neoplasm (EMA+; BCL-2 and CD34 negative) with prominent collagen deposition. Necrosis and prominent nucleoli are present; no other atypical features are seen. Mitoses are present, up to 2 per 10 high-powered fields. Final Diagnosis: Dura, bicoronal craniotomy (specimen A): Meningioma with atypical features.
There is no rule in benign brain and CNS section of Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) Rules stating to code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is (something less specific, i.e., adenocarcinoma). This rule is in other site chapters of MP/H but appears missing in the benign brain and CNS section.
","Code as meningioma, NOS (9530/0). This lesion has some of the features of an atypical meningioma (necrosis and prominent nucleoli), but it does not fit the definition of atypical meningioma in WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Use text fields to document the details.
","2017" "20170075","MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of left breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed in 2014 and bone lesions showing metastatic carcinoma consistent with a breast primary in 2017? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast in June 2014. The patient had a simple mastectomy with 2 axillary lymph nodes removed. The final diagnosis was intermediate to high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, predominantly micropapillary type, forming a 1.4 cm mass. No invasive carcinoma identified. Margins negative. In April 2017, the patient was found to have parietoccipital bone lesions, which were resected. The resulting diagnosis was metastatic carcinoma, morphologically consistent with breast primary "" See Comment: The previous breast lesion is not available for review at the time of signout. However, the tumor is morphologically compatible with a breast primary.
SINQ 20110111 would not make this is new primary. However, it seems that rule M8 might apply. An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary. See Note 2: Abstract as multiple primaries even if the medical record/physician states it is recurrence or progression of disease.
","Assuming there were no other breast or any other tumors for this patient, change the behavior code to /3 on the original abstract for the 2014 breast primary.
Similar to SINQ 20110111, there was likely a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.
The MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Therefore, rule M8 cannot be used.
","2017" "20170074","Reportability--Kidney: Is a renal cell neoplasm stated to be multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential a reportable tumor if the physician refers to the tumor as renal cell carcinoma in a follow-up note after surgery? If reportable, how is histology coded? See Discussion.
","The partial nephrectomy final diagnosis is renal cell neoplasm. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Summary lists histology as: multilocular clear cell neoplasm of low malignant potential. The diagnosis comment adds: This neoplasm currently termed multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential (WHO 2016), was previously termed cystic renal cell carcinoma.
","For now, report the case and code to 8310/3.
In the 3rd Ed WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, multilocular clear cell RCC is coded as 8310/3, however the recent 4th Ed WHO Tumors of Urinary System notes this term is obsolete and a synonym for multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (8316/1) which would be non-reportable. Per WHO 3rd Ed these tumors never recur or metastasize which may be why the behavior code is shown as /1. The standard setters must review this terminology change in relation to reporting the case as it may impact incidence rates.
","2017" "20170073","Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are histology and behavior coded for a diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor in an infant? See Discussion.
","Patient is an 11 month old with brain biopsy showing final diagnosis of pineal anlage tumor. How are behavior and histology coded for this rare tumor?
","Assign 9362/3 for pineal anlage tumors. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, 4th edition, pineal anlage tumors, while extremely rare, share features with pineoblastoma. Although they have a distinct morphology, there is no other ICD-O-3 code for pineal anlage tumors.
","2017" "20170072","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the diagnosis of large granular lymphocyte syndrome or large granular lymphocyte disorder a reportable synonym for T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia? See Discussion.
","The physician consult in this case further specifies that the large granular lymphocyte disorder represents an autoimmune disease of autoimmune T-cell mediated mechanism. Is this a reportable diagnosis?
","Report large granular lymphocyte disorder (9831/3). Alternate names for T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia (9831/3) listed in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database include but are not limited to Chronic large granular lymphocyte lymphoproliferative disorder, large granular lymphocytosis, NOS, and T-cell large granular lymphocytosis.
","2017" "20170071","Reportability/Brain and CNS: Is incidentaloma reportable from brain and central nervous system (CNS) imaging? See Discussion.
","We are seeing the term ""incidentaloma"" on magnetic resonance imaging (MR) reports of head and also with physician statements. For example, this MR of the head: Impression--Suboptimal study due to motion degradation. Heterogeneously enhancing pituitary gland without evidence of acute abnormality. A 3 mm focus of relative hypoenhancement in the left gland is favored to represent an incidentaloma. Advise correlation with clinical findings.
Also, there are cases where the scans show meningioma and then at a later date it is stated to be an incidentaloma in physician notes.
Is the term ""incidentaloma"" alone reportable, if the term ""tumor"" for CNS cases is never stated? When I googled the term, it is stated to mean ""tumor.""
","The term ""incidentaloma"" alone is not reportable. Look for a reportable term elsewhere or in later information. When the term ""incidentaloma"" is used on a magnetic resonance imaging (MR) report, it refers to ""a disease or physical condition found as a secondary by-product of capturing the necessary volume of tissue within the field of view of the MR examination"" (http://radsource.us/incidentaloma). It is not necessarily neoplastic.
","2017" "20170070","Primary Site/Histology--Urinary: Is a urethral lesion showing intraductal carcinoma of the prostate reportable? What is the primary site and histology code? See discussion.
","Pathology report diagnosis: Urethral lesion: Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, see microscopic. Clinical Information: Urethral Lesion/Hematura. Microscopic Description: The biopsy shows dilated ductal structures filled with anaplastic epithelium showing areas of comedo-type necrosis. The tumor cells have enlarged nuclei prominent nucleoli and mitoses are identified. Surrounding benign prostatic tissue is also present. Immunostains show that the tumor cells stain for PSA, PSAP, P504s but are negative for GATA-3. The other components of the PIN 4 stain CK5/14 and P63 stain the basal cells surrounding the tumor confirming the intraductal nature of the process. Intraductal carcinoma should not be confused with high grade PIN as the former is usually associated with high grade invasive tumor. Is this C619 and 8500/2?
","The primary site is prostate, C619, and the histology is intraductal carcinoma, 8500/2. Further workup on this case is likely. If more information is received, review this case and update if needed.
","2017" "20170068","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology of a lung tumor described as solid predominant with mucin production, 8230/3 (Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule 5) or 8255/3 (MP/H Rule 6)? See Discussion.
","Pathology report: Left lower lobe lung, Tumor Size: Greatest dimension: 3.0 cm Additional dimensions: 2.5 x 2.0 cm; Tumor Focality: Unifocal; Histologic Type: Invasive adenocarcinoma Solid predominant with mucin production; Histologic Grade: G3: Poorly differentiated. Is the correct histology for this case 8230/3 (rule H5) or 8255/3 (rule H6)?
","Code histology as 8230/3, solid adenocarcinoma with mucin formation, using MP/H Rule H3 as one histologic type is identified. All of the histologic terms (solid, mucin production) are covered by 8230/3. Therefore, rule H3 applies. Use the first rule that applies, and stop.
","2017" "20170066","Primary Site/Corpus uteri: Is the primary site C541 (endometrium) or C543 (uterine fundus) when the histology states endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, but tumor site states fundus? See Discussion.
","Pathology--Final description: Uterus, cervix, bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries, total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: Endometrial adenocarcinoma, endometrioid type, well differentiated, FIGO 1/3. Myometrial invasion: focal myometrial invasion (30% of myometrium) Tumor size: 2 x2 cm Tumor site: Fundus, exophytic/polypoid lesion Gross description: The 3.0 cm in length by 2.5 cm in diameter triangular endometrium is tan-red and smooth with a 2.0 x 2.0 cm tan-pink, exophytic fundic mass which extends on to both anterior and posterior aspects, 4.1 cm from the os.
","We recommend coding endometrium, C541, as the primary site for this case. While coding to fundus would not be incorrect, according to our expert pathologist consultant, ""it is more appropriate in a setting in which the region of the uterus is of importance, e.g. with a myoma or a myosarcoma, or if the endometrioid carcinoma were NOT in the endometrium but arising in a focus of adenomyosis within the fundic myometrium ""
","2017" "20170065","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a single tumor with final diagnosis undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma arising in association with papillary thyroid carcinoma and the Summary Cancer Data states Histologic type: Undifferentiated (anaplastic) carcinoma only? See Discussion.
","The Summary Cancer Data does not seem to describe a more specific histology, but it does describe the tumor histology with the worst outcome and the most extensive tumor. The anaplastic carcinoma grossly extended into skeletal muscle and gave rise to multiple regional lymph node metastases. The more appropriate histology seems to be 8021.
However, current MP/H Rules for a single tumor indicate the histology should be coded to the numerically higher histology code (8260). Coding the histology to 8260 does not account for the more aggressive tumor. Should this histology be 8260 or 8021?
","Code the most specific histologic term, 8260, for papillary carcinoma of the thyroid using Multiple Primary/Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites (single tumor, invasive section). Use text fields to describe the complete histology.
","2017" "20170064","Grade/Histology--Rectum: How should histology and grade be coded for high grade neuroendocrine tumor (NET) (WHO Grade 3) of the rectum? See Discussion.
","Rectal mass biopsy final diagnosis: High grade neuroendocrine tumor (WHO Grade 3). Neither SINQ 20170033 nor 20160023 address coding histology or grade for neuroendocrine tumors that are designated as high grade and/or WHO grade 3.
","Assign histology code 8246/3. Assign grade code 4 based on the description ""high grade."" A high-grade neuroendocrine ""tumor"" is actually a neuroendocrine ""carcinoma"" (NEC) according to WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. If possible, verify this interpretation with the diagnosing pathologist. Use text fields to document the details of this case.
","2017" "20170063","Reportability/Behavior--Ovary: Is adult granulosa cell tumor a reportable malignant tumor if the primary ovarian tumor ruptured intraoperatively, the peritoneum was contaminated, and the patient underwent adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy given the increased risk of recurrence due to intraoperative tumor spill? See Discussion.
","Per SINQ 20130176 and 20140034, adult granulosa cell tumors of the ovary are reportable malignant tumors when there are peritoneal implants or metastases. The SINQ responses describe how these adult granulosa cell tumors are different from low malignant potential (LMP) epithelial ovarian tumors. Would these SINQ scenarios apply to a case with intraoperative tumor rupture that resulted in peritoneal tumor?
In this case, the pathologist indicated these excised peritoneal specimens were favored to be intraoperative contamination with adult granulosa cell tumor. However, the oncologist went on to treat this patient as high risk with chemotherapy. The oncologist only described one of the pelvic peritoneal implants as possibly contamination due to the rupture. The oncologist never indicated the tumors were definitely peritoneal implants. Should the behavior of this tumor be /1 because the peritoneal tumor appears to be contamination, or /3 because the oncologist treated this patient as high risk?
","If the ""implants"" were due to intraoperative contamination and were not present prior to surgery, do not interpret them as indicative of malignancy. The behavior of this tumor is /1.
","2017" "20170062","Race, ethnicity: How do you code race for someone from New Zealand?
","I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked ""How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian).
","If the only information you have on race is that the person is from New Zealand, code race as white. This is based on the instructions for Australia, the closest neighbor to New Zealand as no other guidance was found.
","2017" "20170061","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: What is the correct histology when final diagnosis of a thyroidectomy includes the descriptor ""papillary and follicular architecture?"" See Discussion.
","Total thyroidectomy Final Diagnosis: Papillary carcinoma, classical type, with papillary and follicular architecture.
The 2007 MP/H rules state that the term architecture is reserved for coding subtype of in situ primaries only. However, SINQ 20130165 appears to indicate this should be coded for invasive thyroid subtypes as well. Can you confirm the addition of the term architecture for determining an invasive histologic subtype for thyroid?
","Assign code 8260/3, papillary carcinoma per Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule H14.
Architecture is reserved for coding subtype of in situ primaries only. SINQ 20130165 is not intended to indicate this should be coded for invasive thyroid subtypes.
","2017" "20170060","MP/H Rules/Histology/Grade--Unknown & ill-defined sites: What is the correct histology and grade of a liver biopsy with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma low to intermediate grade if primary site is unknown? See Discussion.
","CT-guided liver biopsy, diagnosis: Metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Diagnosis Comment: Cytology of the tumor appears to be low to intermediate grade.
Would this case be coded as an atypical carcinoid tumor (8249/3) based on SINQ 20170033 and the statement of intermediate grade; or should this be 8240/3 (neuroendocrine tumor) per SINQ 20160023 because it is a metastatic site? More clarification is needed on when to code 8249/3 or 8240/3 for a neuroendocrine carcinoma or neoplasm seen in a metastatic specimen only when there is specified grade.
","Assign histology code 8246/3 and assign code 9 for grade.
Since the primary is unknown and the type of NEC is not definitively stated, code neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS based on the diagnosis.
Code grade from primary tumor only. Assign grade code 9 when the primary site is unknown. See instruction 2.b. in the Grade Coding Instructions for 2014+.
SINQ 20170033 and SINQ 20160023 provide instructions for coding the grade/differentiation field. Using these SINQ questions to code histology could lead to errors.
","2017" "20170058","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for an initial biopsy of non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma with a subsequent re-biopsy showing poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma after chemotherapy with no response? See discussion.
","Patient had a biopsy in April 2014; pathology was reported as non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine phenotype, possible large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient had five cycles of cisplatin/etoposide with no response. In May 2015, a re-biopsy at a referral institution reports poorly differentiated small cell carcinoma and states ""feels that this could have been the histology all along and why patient has failed multi lines of chemo.""
","Code to 8041, small cell carcinoma, because the medical opinon confirms that this was the correct histology from the begining.
""Possible"" is not an ambiguous term used to code histology. The MP/H rules do not include coding phenotype. That leaves non-small cell (8046/3) at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy does not alter cell type so its likely the tumor was small cell all along only now proven with additional testing.
Page 14 of the SEER Coding Manual gives examples of when to change the abstract's original codes and here is one example: When better information is available later. Example 1: Consults from specialty labs, pathology report addendums or comments or other information have been added to the chart. Reports done during the diagnostic workup and placed on the chart after the registrar abstracted the information may contain valuable information. Whenever these later reports give better information about the histology, grade of tumor, primary site, etc., change the codes to reflect the better information.
","2017" "20170057","Grade: If the biopsy site is a higher grade, is the grade of the biopsy used over the grade of the surgical resection? See Discussion.
","When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018: Use the Grade Coding Instructions to code grade. The instructions are intended to standardize coding of grade across the U.S. and to eliminate differences in opinion between pathologists. Standardized coding ensures that data can be combined and used for statistical analysis.
You may code grade based on the biopsy when following the grade coding instructions.
","2017" "20170056","Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is 'skin, left temporal scalp, low grade adnexal carcinoma, probable sweat gland origin' reportable as 8400/3, skin of temple?
","","Assign 8390/3 for adnexal carcinoma of skin. 8390/3 is reportable, including 8390/3 of skin.
","2017" "20170055","First Course of Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Do you code total hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy when a specimen indicates the uterus, cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and right and left parametrium were resected, but shows no portion of the vagina. See Discussion.
","AFS1-AFS2-frozen section control, endomyometrium; AFS3-frozen section control, subserosal intramural mass; A4-anterior cervix; A5-posterior cervix; A6-anterior cervical endometrial junction; A7-posterior cervical endometrial junction; A8-A10-anterior endomyometrium, including tumor; A11-A13-posterior endomyometrium, including tumor and adjacent mass; A14-random section subserosal mass; A15-left parametrium at margin of resection; A16-right parametrium at margin of resection; A17-A18-left ovary and fallopian tube; A19-A20-right ovary and fallopian tube. The final diagnosis includes Endometrial adenocarcinoma, favor serous carcinoma, with papillary and solid areas. Tumor involves: Cervix present, Right ovary, Left ovary, Right fallopian tube, Left fallopian tube, Right parametrium, Left parametrium.
","Assign code 50 for total hysterectomy. According to Appendix C Surgery Codes for Corpus Uteri of the 2016 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, total hysterectomy is surgery to remove the entire uterus, including the cervix; whereas, radical hysterectomy includes the vagina.
","2017" "20170054","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a 2011 diagnosis of oligodendroglioma followed by biopsy of tumor which demonstrated progression in 2016 with pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating WHO grade III anaplastic astrocytoma? See Discussion.
","The clinical documentation clearly identifies residual tumor after the 2011 craniotomy. Scans demonstrated slow enlargement of the tumor over the years, which resulted in a repeat craniotomy. The pathologist noted in the diagnosis comment section of the pathology report that
Is this a single primary per MP/H Rule M3 (A single tumor is always a single primary), or an additional brain malignancy per MP/H Rule M8 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes on different branches in Chart 1 or Chart 2 are multiple primaries)?
","Based on the information provided, this is a single primary. The 2011 tumor was not completely removed and progressed over the years. MP/H Rule M3 for malignant brain cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type of anaplastic astrocytoma, WHO grade III.
","2017" "20170052","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Is urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, predominantly solid type, coded as 8120/3 or 8230/3? See Discussion.
","Urinary bladder: Invasive urothelial carcinoma, high-grade, 4.5cm, predominantly solid type, arising in background of carcinoma in-situ, carcinoma grossly extends into perivesical adipose tissue; lymph-vascular invasion is seen.
","Assign histology code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS. Solid type is not a recognized variant of urothelial tumors and likely represents the appearance of the urothelial cells within the tumor and not a specific histologic type.
","2017" "20170051","Reportability--Liver: Is intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver a reportable diagnosis? See Discussion.
","Pathology shows: Right liver lobe, partial hepatectomy "" intraductal papillary neoplasm with high grade dysplasia.
","Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the liver with high grade dysplasia is reportable. While most IPMNs arise from the pancreas, there exists a subset of IPMN of the biliary tract (BT-IPMN). Code as 8453/2.
For more details, see the Reportability section of the SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf
","2017" "20170050","First course of treatment/Other therapy--How do you code medical marijuana when given as ""treatment?"" See Discussion.
","The patient has gastric cancer and the physician prescribed medical marijuana as treatment. SEER*Rx says marijuana is ancillary as a psychoactive cannabinoid and antiemetic and advises not to code it. The physician specifically wrote ""treatment with"" in the record. Should it be coded as Other (Code 1) under Other Therapy?
","Do not code as treatment. Enter the information regarding the use of marijuana in a text field. There have been some early clinical trials of cannabinoids in treating cancer in humans and more studies are planned. While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease. At this time, marijuana is used to treat side-effects (such as nausea, vomiting, and pain) and to help increase appetite which helps patients tolerate standard therapies.
","2017" "20170049","MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the histology code of invasive adenocarcinoma, non-mucinous with intraductal tubulopapillary features, moderately differentiated, from the pathology report final diagnosis of the pancreas? Does 'intraductal"" refer to a non-invasive/in-situ component or describe the pattern of growth?
","","Assign 8503/3, intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma with invasion, to capture the more specific features of the adenocarcinoma. Histology Rule H13 for Other Sites states to code the most specific histologic term. Examples include Adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma. Note: The specific histology may be identified as type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation.
","2017" "20170046","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a patient with a pathology report Final Diagnosis indicating, mucin-rich neuroepithelial neoplasm, favor low-grade? See Discussion.
","The pathologist noted this was a challenging brain neoplasm that did not easily fit into a specific WHO diagnostic classification. Multiple differential diagnoses were given including pilomyxoid astrocytoma, ganglioglioma and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNET), but there were no definitive features characteristic of any of these tumors. In the Comment section following the Final Diagnosis, it further states: ""In summary, the tumor appears to be a difficult to classify non-infiltrating glial/glioneuronal neoplasm without definitive high-grade features.""
","Code as 9505/1, Ganglioglioma, NOS. The Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules for Benign and Borderline Intracranial and CNS Tumors Chart 1 lists several histology codes for neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors. Ganglioglioma, formerly Glioneuroma that is now obstolete in ICD-O-3, is the most applicable in this situation.
","2017" "20170045","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is meningioangiomatosis reportable as meningiomatosis (9530/1) or angiomatous meningioma (9534/0)? See Discussion.
","Pathology report: Brain tumor, left side: Gliotic cortex and subcortical white matter with meningioangiomatosis (see Comment). Comment This specimen represents a meningioangiomatous lesion located in the leptomeninges that projects along the Virchow-Robin spaces into the underlying cortex. The surrounding brain parenchyma demonstrates reactive changes with astrogliosis and microgliosis. An intraparenchymal neoplasm is not seen. Meningioangiomatosis is a rare benign meningovascular hamartomatous condition and usually appears in young patients.
","Meningioangiomatosis is not reportable. It is a cortical lesion which may occur sporadically or in NF2 (neurofibromatosis type 2). It is not listed in ICD-O-3.
","2017" "20170044","Histology--Sarcoma: What is the histology code for epithelioid angiosarcoma?
","","Assign 9120/3 for epithelioid angiosarcoma.
","2017" "20170043","Reportability--Ovary: Is ovarian mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion reportable? If reportable, what is the histology? See Discussion.
","4/18/17 Right ovary and fallopian tube, salpingo-oophorectomy: mucinous borderline tumor of intestinal type with microinvasion; greatest dimension 24.5 cm. Left fallopian tube and ovary, salpingo-oophorectomy: Benign ovary with multiple benign Mullerian inclusions. Benign fallopian tube with multiple paratubal cysts. Per pathology: pT1a pNx.
","For an ovarian mucinous borderline tumor, the term ""microinvasion"" is not an indication of malignancy according to the WHO classification of tumors, and our expert pathologist consultant agrees. Therefore, borderline mucinous ovarian tumor with microinvasion is not reportable. Low malignant potential/borderline ovarian tumors are defined by the pathology of the primary tumor in the ovary, and microinvasion there, or invasion in implants does not change that diagnosis. The only exception is when the lymph nodes are positive for malignancy, the case is reportable. If the lymph nodes are positive for mucinous borderline tumor, the case is not reportable.
","2017" "20170042","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) with large cell transformation equivalent to a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) without mention of Richter transformation or Richter Syndrome? See Discussion.
","The patient has a history of CLL/SLL dating back to 2007, but has had progressive disease with development of a new left frontal brain tumor. The brain tumor resection proved CLL/SLL with large cell transformation, but neither the pathologist nor the managing physician called this a Richter transformation, Richter syndrome or provided a diagnosis of DLBCL. However, a large cell transformation of CLL/SLL is a Richter transformation. Can this be accessioned as a new acute neoplasm per Rule M10?
","Accession as multiple primaries according to Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Rule M10. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) followed by CLL/SLL with large cell transformation is multiple primaries because it is a chronic neoplasm followed by an acute neoplasm, more than 21 days in this case.
","2017" "20170041","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a thyroidectomy final diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, favor cribriform-morula variant? See Discussion.
","This specific histology (cribriform-morula variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma) is not found in the ICD-O and is not mentioned in the 2007 MP/H Manual. However, per a web search it appears that this is a distinct type of papillary thyroid carcinoma (http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/24/4/R109.full).
Example: Right lobectomy shows thyroid epithelial neoplasm, pending consultation.
Consultation: Thyroid gland, right lobe: papillary thyroid carcinoma, favor cribriform-morula variant.
Consultation Comment: IHC stains argue against medullary carcinoma. The histologic features of growth patterns and cytologic atypia (with rare grooves and pseudoinclusions) and the immunohistochemical profile support a diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, favoring the cribriform-morula variant. It is important to note that a significant number of patients with this variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma have been associated with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome.
","Assign code 8260/3 for papillary carcinoma of thyroid. Cribriform-morula variant is not listed in ICD-O-3 for papillary carcinoma. Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule H14 states to code papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary adenocarcinoma, NOS (8260).
","2017" "20170040","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for lung cancer case identified pathologically from a metastatic site that differs from the histology stated by the physician? See Discussion.
","Bronchial washings were negative. Four lymph nodes were biopsied and found to have metastatic poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The treating oncologist calls it small cell carcinoma, extensive stage, and treats patient with carboplatin and VP-16 (etoposide) The MP/H rule says to take path/cyto from a metastatic site if no pathology/cytology available from the primary site. Is the physician's statement and treatment taken into consideration here?
","Code the histology based on the pathology report from the lymph node biopsy for this case. Pathology has higher priority than a physician's statement for assigning histology code. Use text fields to document the physician's statement.
","2017" "20170039","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How should histology be coded for final bone marrow diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts? See Discussion.
","This terminology is not specifically included in either alternate names list for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (9989/3) or refractory anemia with excess blasts (9983/3).
Example: Bone Marrow Biopsy, Final Diagnosis: Consistent with involvement by myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS EB-2).
","Assign code 9983/3 refractory anemia with excess blasts. Refractory anemia is a type of myelodyplastic syndrome. We will add this to the Heme & Lymphoid database during the next update.
","2017" "20170037","Primary site--Other and Unspecified Urinary Organs: What is the topography code for a Skene's gland adenocarcinoma?
","","The most appropriate available topography code is C681, paraurethral gland. Skene's gland is also referred to as paraurethral gland.
","2017" "20170036","Grade--Prostate: How are the prostate-related fields completed when documentation in pathology reports only includes one of the new grade groups? See Discussion.
","Our pathologists have starting to use a new prostate cancer grading system that was adopted by WHO in 2016. The new grading scheme correlates with the prior Gleason grading scheme as follows:
Grade Group 1 = Gleason score 6 or less
Grade Group 2 = Gleason score 3+4=7
Grade Group 3 = Gleason score 4+3 = 7
Grade Group 4 = Gleason score 8
Grade Group 5 = Gleason score 9-10
Our pathologists are no longer dictating the Gleason Primary and Secondary Pattern values nor the Gleason's Score. Reverse correlation from the new grade groups to the required patterns and score are difficult with Grade Groups 2 and 3 needing to be distinguished from one another and Grade Group 5 including two unique scores.
The prostate-related fields include:
Collaborative Site Specific Factor 7: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Needle Core Biopsy/TURP
Collaborative Site Specific Factor 8: Gleason's Score On Needle Core Biopsy/TURP
Collaborative Site Specific Factor 9: Gleason's Primary Pattern and Secondary Pattern Values on Prostatectomy/Autopsy
Collaborative Site Specific Factor 10: Gleason's Score on Prostatectomy/Autopsy
","When all you have is the grade group, you may use the following table to convert the Prostate Grade Groups to the appropriate code for the indicated fields.
Grade Group Gleason Score Gleason Pattern SSF7 SSF8 SSF9 SSF10 Grade/diff
Grade Group 1 6 or less <=3+3 099 999 099 999 1
Grade Group 2 7 3+4 034 007 034 007 2
Grade Group 3 7 4+3 043 007 043 007 2
Grade Group 4 8 4+4, 3+5, 5+3 999 999 999 999 3
Grade Group 5 9-10 4+5, 5+4, 5+5 099 999 099 999 3
","2017" "20170035","MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the histology code of serous tubal intraepithelial (in situ) carcinoma (STIC), bilateral fallopian tubes?
","","Assign 8441/2. This is based on the WHO classification for female reproductive system tumors.
","2017" "20170034","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Would you code a unilateral breast simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and AlloDerm or an acellular dermal matrix as Code 45, Reconstruction with Implant, or Code 46, Reconstruction with Combined Tissue and Implant? See Discussion.
","Since acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm comes from human tissue donors with cells removed and sterilized to promote regenesis and decrease rejection, is Alloderm coded as ""Tissue' as it also ""provides an additional layer of tissue between the skin and the implant?
","Assign code 43 for a simple mastectomy with tissue expanders and acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm. The tissue expander indicates preparation for reconstruction. The acellular dermal matrix/AlloDerm is not coded because, while they often accompany an implant procedure, they are not the principle element of reconstructive procedures. The principle elements would be tissue from the patient and/or prosthetics (e.g., gel implants).
","2017" "20170033","Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion.
","Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).
WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.
","See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors.
Since this diagnosis includes ""Well differentiated"" and ""Grade 2,"" assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""intermediate"" fits best with grade 2.
","2017" "20170031","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Penis: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis in 6/2011, treated with excision and fulguration followed by 10/2014 penile lesion found to be SCC with basaloid features focally highly suspicious for invasion? Clinically, the 2014 tumor is stated to be in situ and recurrent penile cancer and follow-up in 2/2015 indicates there was no evidence of tumor following treatment. Subsequently, in 3/2016 the patient has another penile lesion biopsy showing SCC in situ suspicious for invasion, clinically stated to be recurrent. See Discussion.
","At the central registry, we have accessioned this scenario as three primaries per Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) Rule M10 (diagnosed more than 1 year apart), as the patient was stated to be disease free between each occurrence. However, the diagnosing/treating facility is not reporting these cases due to clinical statements of recurrent disease.
This is an example of a case type identified on casefinding audits conducted by our central registry in which we have learned SEER's expectation of MP/H rule application does not match hospital reporting. Can the 2018 version of the MP/H rules more clearly address how this type of clinically recurrent (multiple times) case should be handled?
","Accession three tumors as the tumors were each diagnosed more than one year apart according to the MP/H Rule M10 for Other Sites. And, as you have noted, the patient was free of disease after each diagnosis.
The MP/H rules have very clear instructions regarding the word ""recurrence."" See page 10, specifically A.7., https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/2007_mphrules_manual_08242012.pdf
SEER will evaluate the MP/H rules in the upcoming revision.
","2017" "20170030","Surgery Primary Site--Melanoma: How should Surgery of Primary Site be coded for a melanoma diagnosed on punch or shave biopsy followed by a wide excision that shows no residual disease and the gross wide excision specimen size showing no residual is greater than 1 cm in all dimensions (length, width and depth)? See Discussion.
","Discussion: Example: Shave biopsy with superficial spreading melanoma, Breslow 0.25 mm, Clark level II. Excision with no residual melanoma and gross description of specimen size is 4.0 x 1.6 cm skin ellipse excised to a depth of 1.8 cm.
We have differing opinions in our registry.
Opinion 1: We can assume margins are greater than 1 cm based on the excision specimen size when there is no residual tumor on excision and all dimensions of the excision specimen are more than 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 40s range.
Opinion 2: We should assume the melanoma defect was in the middle of the excision specimen, so for a skin ellipse that is 4.0 x 1.6 cm, there would be a 2 cm and 0.8 cm margin (respectively) from the middle of the specimen, thus margins are not > 1 cm. Surgery would be coded in 30s range.
","Assign code 30: Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The margins are unknown. The registrar should not try to determine the margins when they are not specified. See the SEER Note at the top of page 2 in the Skin Surgery Codes section of Appendix C of the SEER manual ""If it is stated to be a wide excision or reexcision, but the margins are unknown, code to 30."" https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/AppendixC/Surgery_Codes_Skin_2016.pdf
","2017" "20170029","Reportability--Bone: Are giant cell tumors (GCT) of the bone that metastasize to the lung reportable? See Discussion.
","Patient had radical resection of pelvic giant cell tumor of bone in August 2012. Final diagnosis clarified that no features to suggest a frankly malignant giant cell tumor were identified.
July 2013 left upper lobe nodules were removed and found to be consistent with multifocal metastatic lung involvement with a previous pelvic giant cell tumor of bone. However, the pathology report comment specifies there are no histological high-grade features to suggest a malignancy:
While SINQ 20091087 may apply, these metastases clearly arrived in the lung by hematogenous spread. The previous SINQ note refers to a case where the implants/metastases can seed the surrounding pelvic and abdominal structures by rupture of the tumor or intraoperative tumor spillage. That type of spread is not quite the same as the current case showing tumor cells leaving the primary tumor/site and travelling through the blood to implant in the lungs.
","This case is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Bone Tumors, pulmonary metastases from GCTs are ""very slow-growing and are thought to represent pulmonary implants that result from embolization of intravascular growths of GCT. Some of these benign pulmonary implants can regress spontaneously. A small number, however, exhibit progressive enlargement and can lead to the death of the patient."" The pathologist for this case is very clear that no malignancy was found in the lung or in the bone.
","2017" "20170028","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How should histology be coded for a clear cell renal cell carcinoma when the CAP protocol indicates sarcomatoid features are present? See Discussion.
","Sarcomotoid (8318) is listed as a specific renal cell subtype in the MP/H manual, but it is not listed as a renal cell subtype in the most recent WHO blue book for Urinary Organs. We are wondering if sarcomatoid features, as listed in the CAP protocol format in the following example, should be ignored when coding histology?
Left kidney, radical nephrectomy:
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, with the following features:
Tumor size: 8.5 X 6 cm.
Tumor focality: Unifocal.
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Tumor limited to kidney.
Sarcomatoid features: Present (<20% of tumor shows sarcomatoid features).
Histologic grade: G4.
Microscopic tumor extension: Tumor limited to kidney.
Margins: All margins negative for invasive carcinoma.
Lymph-vascular invasion: Not identified.
","Code 8255 (adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes). The Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule H6 applies as there are two or more specific renal cell carcinoma types, clear cell and sarcomatoid (Spindle cell), as listed in Table 1 of the kidney Terms and definitions.
","2017" "20170027","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Is a melanoma with an unknown laterality a different laterality for the purposes of applying Multiple Primaries/Histology Rule M4? See Discussion.
","8/1/2016 Left Abdomen biopsy: Early melanoma in situ (C445-2, 8720/2).
9/2/2016 Upper back: Superficially invasive malignant melanoma (C445-9, 8720/3).
Does rule M4 apply and multiple primaries should be reported or does rule M8 apply and a single primary should be reported?
","Abstract multiple primaries following Multiple Primary Rule M4. Unknown laterality is a different laterality for the purposes of applying the MP/H rules for melanoma.
NOTE: This answer applies to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. As of 1/1/2018, early melanoma is not reportable.
","2017" "20170026","Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: Are tumors diagnosed more than three years apart multiple primaries according to Rule M7 in a case with metastasis? See Discussion.
","5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion.
","Rule M7 applies. Abstract the bladder diagnosis and the renal pelvis diagnosis as separate primaries.
The lung diagnosis is metastatic. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.
","2017" "20170025","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is this the same primary per MP/H Rule M10? Ductal carcinoma of the left breast in 2013, treated with a lumpectomy. New tumor with ductal and lobular carcinoma in the same breast in 2016.
","","The 2016 diagnosis is the same primary. MP/H Rule M10 for breast cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type -- duct and lobular.
","2017" "20170024","Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion from a pathology report of a colon biopsy reportable?; if so, what is the histology code?
","","Tubular adenoma with high grade dysplasia and focal invasion is reportable. Assign the histology code and behavior as 8210/3 (Adenocarcinoma in tubular adenoma).
NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Implementation discuss the term high grade dysplasia (without invasion). High grade dysplasia and related terms are under review and study for consideration as a reportable neoplasm. Registries should check with their state reporting legislation to see if included in the reporting requirements.
","2017" "20170023","Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion.
","We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below.
PI-RADS (v2) categories:
PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present)
PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present)
PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal)
PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)
PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)
A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date?
","Updated answer
PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary.
PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present)
PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present)
Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis.
","2017" "20170022","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for an embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes. WHO shows the code as 9478/3, but this code is not available for use in the United States.
","","Assign ICD-O-3 code 9392/3 until code 9478/3 is implemented in 2018. Per our expert neuropathologist, embryonal tumor with multilayered rosettes was previously called ependymoblastoma.
","2017" "20170020","Size of tumor--Breast: Please clarify guideline #7 if the only size you have is from a CORE biopsy specimen and imaging only states nonspecific sizes, like ""architectural distortion"" or ""calcifications"" and a core biopsy pathology reports invasive tumor spans 5mm. Do you use the core biopsy size, or use 999 for clinical tumor size? See discussion.
","SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 states: Record size in specified order using a. The largest measurement of the primary tumor from physical exam, imaging, or other diagnostic procedures before any form of treatment. See Coding Instructions 7-9 below. b. The largest size from all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis, in the absence of disease progression when no treatment is administered. #7 Priority of imaging/radiographic techniques: Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code clinical size when there is no more specific size information from a biopsy or operative (surgical exploration) report. It should be taken as a lower priority, but over a physical exam.
","Do not code size of tumor based on the size of the core biopsy. If the statement ""invasive tumor spans 5mm"" from the core biopsy report represents the surgeon's assessment of tumor size, use this information to code tumor size when no other information is available.
","2017" "20170019","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a mixed germ cell tumor that also includes choriocarcinoma now that non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9065) and seminomatous mixed germ cell tumors (9085) are collapsed for analysis? See Discussion.
","The MP/H Rules (Other Sites Terms and Definitions, Table 2) currently lists a separate mixed germ cell tumor code (9101) for germ cell tumors with choriocarcinoma plus teratoma, seminoma or embryonal carcinoma. Is this separate mixed germ cell tumor code still to be used now that all mixed germ cell tumors (9065 and 9085) have been collapsed into code 9085 for analysis per SINQs 20160056 and 20110013? The current WHO Classification for testis tumors does not list code 9101, but also collapses all seminomatous and nonseminomatous mixed germ cell tumors of more than one histologic type under code 9085.
","While WHO 4th Ed Tumors of Urinary and Male Genital System does not include 9101/3, this code has not been made obsolete. Follow the 2007 MP/H rules and code histology to 9101/3 per Other sites rule H16, Table 2.
","2017" "20170018","MPH Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: Does MP/H Rule M7 (diagnosed more than 60 days apart) apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma, or are these further excision of the original diagnosis and the same primary, even when it appears treatment was complete after the initial excision? See Discussion.
","A dementia patient has been managed for a persistent right cheek skin lesion that has been slow growing for about 5 years. It was biopsied in 12/23/15 revealing a Breslow 0.12 mm lentigo maligna melanoma by an outside provider. A larger resection of the lesion on 2/3/16 demonstrated a Breslow 0.30 mm lentigo maligna melanoma with melanoma in situ present at the margins per the available pathology report. There was no statement in the record that any additional treatment was planned or necessary.
Patient healed well from the 2/3/16 procedure but developed a recurrent lesion in May that was biopsied on 5/10/16 by the same outside provider which again reveal lentigo maligna melanoma. 7/5/16 Reexcision at the current facility revealed a Breslow 6.1 mm lentigo maligna melanoma, Clarks level V. This was a cutaneous tumor per the path report and not a subcutaneous nodule. Clinically, the MD called this a , but there was no slide comparison to the previous melanoma.
In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.
","Rule M7 pertains to separate tumors. Rule M7 does not apply to invasive melanoma cases with margins positive for in situ melanoma.
Based on the information provided, it is not clear whether or not the 5/10/16 diagnosis is a separate lesion or the same lesion that was diagnosed earlier.
","2017" "20170017","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Liver: How many primaries of the same site and histology are reported if tumors appear years apart but neither is surgically removed? See Discussion.
","Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.
December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?
In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.
","Abstract as a single primary. The 2009 liver tumor remained ""stable"" following treatment and the patient was never disease free.
","2017" "20170014","Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician statement that a patient has a malignant histiocytic disorder best described as Erdheim-Chester disease reportable? If reportable, should histology be coded to 9751/3? See Discussion.
","The patient had a mediastinal mass biopsy showing fibrosclerotic tissue with patchy lymphohistiocytic foci and scattered plasma cells, followed by a retroperitoneal mass biopsy showing fibrohistiocytic infiltrate. Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable per the Heme Database. However, the physician specifically states this is a malignant disorder.
","Erdheim-Chester disease is not reportable. Use the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Database to determine reportability.
The WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues states that Erdheim-Chester disease is a possible adult form of disseminated juvenile xanthogranuloma with bone and lung involvement; no histology code is provided.
","2017" "20170012","Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: How should the primary site and stage be coded for osteosarcoma of breast? Is C509 correct or should the code be a different primary site? When assigning C509, the Collaborative Stage (CS) still pertains to breast cancer and AJCC stages it as a breast cancer and not as a sarcoma.
","","Code primary osteosarcoma of the breast to breast, C500-C509. Not all site and histology combinations can be staged in CS or AJCC. 9180/3 of breast cannot be staged using the CS breast schema. Breast (C500-C509) cannot be staged using the CS soft tissue schema. The same is true for AJCC. You can stage this case using SEER Summary Stage.
Important: Do NOT change the primary site or histology code based on whether or not the case can be CS or AJCC staged. We need to know how many cases are unable to be staged because of their primary site and histology combinations.
","2017" "20170011","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Can we accession two breast primaries when imaging is ""suspicious for malignancy"" on both breasts but only one biopsy is taken and is histologically confirmed, and assume bilateral complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with bilateral mastectomies negative for residual cancer? See Discussion.
","The patient is diagnosed by bilateral mammograms suspicious for malignancy in both breasts. A biopsy is done on one breast and is positive. The physician states that he will not biopsy the contralateral breast, as the patient has consented to bilateral mastectomy. The patient receives neoadjuvant chemo, follow by bilateral mastectomies. Both breasts are negative for residual cancer, stated as a complete response. Based on ""suspicious for malignancy"" can we accession two primaries and assume bilateral complete response?
","Accession two breast primaries, one right and one left, rule M7. ""Suspicious"" is reportable ambiguous terminology.
","2017" "20170010","CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: What estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) values should be coded in a case with two separate tumors (1 ductal, 1 lobular) diagnosed simultaneously in the same breast (single primary) with differing ER/PR values for each tumor? One is ER/PR positive; the other is ER/PR negative.
","","In cases where ER (or PR) is reported on more than one tumor specimen, record the highest value. If any sample is positive, record as positive.
Guidance on Collaborative Stage (CS) site-specific factors (SSFs) in the breast schema can be found in the SEER Registrar Staging Assistant (SEER*RSA): SSF1-Estrogen Receptor (ER) Assay and SSF2-Progesterone Receptor (PR) Assay.
The SEER* RSA breast schema is found at: https://staging.seer.cancer.gov/cs/schema/02.05.50/breast/?breadcrumbs=(~schema_list~)
","2017" "20170009","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned if patient has a LUL lung biopsy with squamous cell carcinoma and subsequently a station 4L node biopsy with small cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Patient has only a LUL tumor on imaging. The tumor board initially states, possibly a mixed tumor, likely IIIA SCC and/or IIIA or B small cell. Later, the physician refers to it as ""Stage III lung cancer, mixed histology with small cell in the lymph node and squamous cell in the LUL mass."" Patient has no further workup and has declined therapy.
","Accession the case as a single lung primary since there is only a mixed tumor noted by the tumor board. Code the histology as 8045, combination/mixed small cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, per Table 1 of the Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules.
","2017" "20170008","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Is the code for invasive adenocarcinoma in a serrated adenoma 8213/3? The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation, effective 1/1/14, provides new terms including 8213/0 for sessile serrated adenoma/sessile serrated polyp and 8213/3 for serrated adenocarcinoma. This would cause Site/Type and Histology overrides to be set. Coding 8210/3 would allow the case to be reported without overrides. See Discussion.
","Pathology report 1/13/15, Histology - Transverse colon resection pathology = Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The invasive adenocarcinoma arises in a sessile serrated adenoma.
","Assign 8213/3 to invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a sessile serrated adenoma. The instruction in SINQ 20120089 is still valid. The 2014 ICD-O-3 Update does not change this SINQ answer.
","2017" "20170007","MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: How should histology be coded when there are multiple bladder, ureter and renal pelvis urothelial tumors including non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma in the left ureter, invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma invading the lamina propria in the bladder, and an invasive sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis that invades the muscularis? See Discussion.
","Per Rule M8, this is a single primary as there are multiple urothelial tumors as outlined in Table 1 (papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130] and sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma [8122]) simultaneously present in multiple urinary organs (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis). As Rule M8 indicates these are a single primary, despite the histologies differing at the third digit (8130 vs 8122), then Rule H14 (Code the histology of the most invasive tumor) seems to be the most applicable histology rule. Following Rule H14 (in the Text version of the MP/H Rules), the histology would be coded as 8122 (sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma) since the renal pelvis tumor was the most invasive tumor present.
However, in both the Matrix and Flowchart versions of the MP/H Rules, Rule H14 contains a note (missing from the Text version) that states that this rule should only be used when the first three numbers of the histology codes are identical (This is a single primary). Rule M8 clearly tells us these are a single primary, despite the differences at the third digit of the histology. Further defaulting to Rule H15 (Code the numerically higher histology code) in this case would ignore the histology of the tumor with the worse prognosis (the most invasive tumor). Was this note included in the Matrix and Flowchart versions in error?
","Code the histology as 8122 according to the MP/H rules for Renal Pelvis, Ureter, Bladder, and Other Urinary, M8 and H14. Rule M8 states urothelial tumors in two or more of urinary sites including bladder and renal pelvis are a single primary. Rule H14 states code the histology of the most invasive tumors for multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary.
","2017" "20170006","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): To code ""3"" in Diagnostic Confirmation, does the genetic testing need to confirm a specific histology or is it enough that is simply rules out others? See Discussion.
","For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123.
","Both histologic plus immunophenotyping or genetic testing should be positive to assign code 3 for Diagnostic Confirmation. The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Diagnostic Confirmation instructions state, assign 3 for
Cases positive for neoplasm being abstracted (including acceptable ambiguous terminology and
provisional diagnosis) AND Immunophenotyping, genetic testing, or JAK2 is listed in the Definitive Diagnosis in the Heme DB AND a.) Confirms the neoplasm OR b.) Identifies a more specific histology (not preceded by ambiguous terminology).
Because the patient was diagnosed with DLBCL by histology, and flow cytometry was positive for CD antigens (immunophenotyping) 20, 22, and 30 for DLBCL, code 3 is appropriate.
","2017" "20170005","Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is neoplasm consistent with carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma reportable as a teratoma, NOS, and if yes, what is the histology code?
","","Carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma or well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), monodermal teratoma of the testis is reportable. Assign 8240/3 according to the WHO classification for this neoplasm.
","2017" "20170004","MP/H Ruels/Histology--Kidney/renal pelvis: How is MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation coded? See Discussion.
","Pathology states: Translocation renal cell carcinoma. Comment Tumor morphology and IHC profile consistent with MiT family translocation RCC with Xp11 translocation.
","Assign 8312/3 to MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with Xp11 translocation.
The recent WHO 4th Ed Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed a new ICD-O-3 code for MiT family translocation RCC, however the implementation of this new code has not yet been approved by the standard setters (SEER, CoC, CDC, NAACCR). Until it is approved, code histology to renal cell carcinoma (8312/3).
","2017" "20170003","Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is epidermoid tumor of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) and trigeminal vesicle nerve reportable, and if so, what is the correct histology code? See discussion.
","Patient presented to hospital ED and had brain MRI that revealed 3.2 cm space occupying lesion in region of the left CPA and trigeminal vesicle nerve compatible with epidermoid tumor.
","Epidermoid tumor of the brain is not reportable. There is no ICD-O-3 code for epidermoid tumor or epidermoid cyst. This type of tumor is often referred to as a cyst because it has a thin wall that secretes a soft material into the center.
","2017" "20170002","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are cavernous sinus meningiomas reportable? See Discussion.
","
Per SINQ 20160068, sphenoid wing meningiomas are reportable (unless stated to be intraosseous) because they arise from the meninges overlying or along the sphenoid wing/sphenoid bone. These are intracranial and not intraosseous meningiomas.
Therefore, wouldn't this logic also apply to cavernous sinus meningiomas? These are tumors that arise from the meninges of an intracranial space, not from bone or soft tissue. The cavernous sinus is a ""true dural venous sinus"" within the skull. While not specifically about meningiomas, SINQ 20071095 states a benign tumor in the cavernous sinus is coded to C490. This SINQ would still seem valid for a benign tumor like a blood vessel tumor, but not for a meningioma that doesn't arise from soft tissue or blood vessels.
","Cavernous sinus meningiomas are reportable, as the meningioma arises in the meninges unless stated otherwise. This is similar to sphenoid wing meningiomas.
","2017" "20170001","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply to the classification of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
","Partial nephrectomy showed carcinoma, histologic type: succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma. This is not a term in the ICD-O, and is not a histology covered in the Kidney MPH rules. However, a recent web search indicates this is a specific type of RCC that was added to the 2016 WHO classification of RCC (per abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179267) and makes up 0.05-0.2% of RCC cases (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229399/).
","Code the histology to renal cell carcinoma, NOS (8312/3). While WHO lists succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma in the latest edition, no specific histology code is provided. MP/H Rule H10 applies since only one histology type is provided, though no code is listed.
","2017" "20160079","First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Is metronomic chemotherapy coded as chemotherapy?
","","Code metronomic chemotherapy as chemotherapy. Metronomic chemotherapy, also referred to as low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy, is an emerging cancer treatment approach which administers relatively low doses of traditional chemotherapy drugs over a long period of time and without ‘breaks’ in treatment. By using lower doses this method of treatment minimizes the side effects of traditional chemotherapy.
","2016" "20160078","First course treatment/Radiation Therapy--Prostate: How do you code fiducial markers for prostate cases?
","","Do not code fiducial markers as a form of radiation treatment; rather, code the radiation therapy in the radiation treatment section. Fiducial markers are small metal spheres, coils, or cylinders that are placed in or near a tumor to help guide the placement of radiation beams during treatment.
","2016" "20160077","First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Prostate: Is XGEVA, given for bone mets from prostate cancer, abstracted as immunotherapy, or is it an ancillary drug and not recorded?
","","Do not record XGEVA when given for bone mets from prostate cancer. See SEER*Rx for more information.
","2016" "20160076","
MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the histology code for a tumor originating in the cerebellum and extending into the fourth venrticle described as a glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component (WHO Grade IV)?
","","The WHO Classification of CNS tumours lists glioblastoma with primitive neuroectodermal tumor component as a subtype of glioblastoma and assigns 9440/3. Also referred to as glioblastoma with a primitive neuronal component.
","2016" "20160075","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code(s) and MP/H rule applies for a breast resection final diagnosis of ""undifferentiated sarcoma associated with a malignant phyllodes tumor and a tumor size of approximately 7 x 6.5 x 4 cm""? (The tumor is primarily sarcoma, with the phyllodes tumor measuring 2.8 cm)? See Discussion.
","Patient has a diagnosis of undifferentiated sarcoma with an associated malignant phyllodes tumor in a single mass. Should this be abstracted as two primaries, one for an undifferentiated sarcoma and the other for a malignant phyllodes tumor? Which MP/H rule applies?
","Abstract a single primary. Based on the information provided, this is a single tumor, and therefore a single primary, Rule M3. Code the histology to malignant phyllodes tumor.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""The presence of a phyllodes tumor component identifies the whole thing as such. Stromal overgrowth/sarcoma is the usual identifier of malignancy in a phyllodes tumor. (If there were no phyllodes component we would be left with undifferentiated sarcoma, but that is not the case here. The diagnosis of malignancy in phyllodes tumor may be difficult/problematic when there is no overt stromal/sarcoma overgrowth as in this case.) As an aside, the behaviors of pure sarcoma and a phyllodes tumor such as we have here are similar, but we would lose the primary diagnosis if we just called this sarcoma.""
","2016" "20160074","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How should histology be coded for a breast primary with resection final diagnosis of ""Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features?"" See Discussion.
","Should the histology for ""Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features"" be coded to 8500 (Ductal carcinoma, NOS) or 8574 (Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation)?
","Code the histology to 8574/3 for Ductal carcinoma with neuroendocrine features.
Ductal carcinoma is also called ""invasive breast carcinoma of no special type."" WHO classifies Invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation as 8574/3.
","2016" "20160073","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology: What histology and how many primaries are coded for a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (rhabdomysarcoma) if the patient was diagnosed with seminoma of the testis in 2009 followed by a 2015 metastatic germ cell tumor in a retroperitoneal lymph node, stated to be a recurrence of the testicular cancer? See Discussion.
","In September 2009 the patient was diagnosed with seminoma, classical type, following an orchiectomy. Testicular mass recurrence in 2014 was treated with chemotherapy.
Then in April 2015 a retroperitoneal dissection of a peri-aortic LN was positive for mixed germ cell tumor with somatic type malignancy (rhabdomyosarcoma) involving 1/11 nodes. Path Comment: major component of tumor is teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma represents <5% of mass.
Now in October 2016, the patient has a retroperitoneal mass biopsy positive for spindle cell sarcoma with rhabdomyosarcomatous differentiation. The comment section of the pathology report states, ""Given the history of a germ cell tumor w/ rhadbomosarcomatous component, the findings are consistent with a recurrence of rhabdomyosarcomatous component of germ cell tumor.""
Can a seminoma transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy (see SINQ 20140082 - testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy)?
","According to our expert pathologist consultant, yes, seminoma could transform to a mixed germ cell tumor with a somatic type malignancy. He advises us to code this case as 9061/3.
From our expert pathologist consultant: This occurs as ""reprogramming"" of the initial germ cell tumor/seminoma cell. The process is not understood, but genetic studies support this progression concept. Most often the next step is teratoma. It is out of the teratoma that the somatic malignancy usually comes. I do wonder about the possibility that this was really an embryonal carcinoma which resembles a seminoma - occasionally this can be a difficult separation. I wonder if they radiated the scrotum following the orchiectomy, also, given the scrotal recurrence.
","2016" "20160071","SEER Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: Can Clark's level classification still used to Summary Stage melanoma? It was previously used by AJCC TNM, but was not included in the 7th edition. I see it is still listed in the CAP protocols for melanoma.
","","Clark's level can be used to assign in situ, localized or regional summary stage.
If there is a discrepancy between the Clark’s level and the pathologic description of extent, use the higher Summary Stage code.
","2016" "20160070","Primary site/MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the appropriate site and histology code for a tumor described as a ""Large mass In suprasellar cistern encroaching into sphenoid & ethmoid sinuses"", with the pathology described as ""INI-1 deficient sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma""? Of note, this patient has a history of a pituitary adenoma, resected overseas a few months prior to this diagnosis.
","","The primary site is unclear. The lesion is intracranial, but this may not be the primary site. In the absence of any additional information, assign C390, 8020/3. According to WHO, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma can involve the nasal cavity, maxillary antrum, and/or ethmoid sinus.
SMARCB1 (INI-1) is a tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 22q11.2. Tumors that showed loss of expression were SMARCB1-deficient tumors which are characterized by nests, sheets, and cords of cells without any histologic evidence of specific (eg, squamous or glandular) differentiation.
","2016" "20160068","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are sphenoid wing meningiomas reportable? See discussion.
","It's my understanding that true intraosseous meningiomas are very rare. It's also my understanding that cranial meninges DO cover the sphenoid wing, so I'm wondering if it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Is that the deciding factor on reportability? It's been suggested to me that meninges cells do lie within the bone, but again if a meningioma is described as being located at the sphenoid wing on imaging, without bone involvement - and no surgery is performed - I do not understand why it is specifically excluded as non-reportable.
","This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.
Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.
Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term ""sphenoid wing meningioma"" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as ""along the sphenoid wing"" or ""overlying the sphenoid wing"" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.
","2016" "20160067","MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: What histology code and MP/H Rule apply to a skin primary with the final diagnosis, ? See Discussion.
","The patient had an upper arm shave biopsy with final diagnosis of basaloid carcinoma with squamous and neuroendocrine differentiation. The pathologist also comments: Further resection was negative for residual malignancy.
Would SINQ 20150033 apply, thus resulting in final histology of carcinoma with neuroendocrine carcinoma (8574/3)?
","Assign 8574/3 according to Other Sites rule H17 for basaloid carcinoma with squamous and neuroendocrine differentiation.
There is no combination code that includes basal cell, squamous, and neuroendocrine. We can combine basal cell with squamous, 8094/3, or carcinoma with neuoendocrine differentiation, 8574/3. Rule H17 directs us to assign the higher code, 8574/3.
","2016" "20160066","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type of ""invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma"" for a single breast tumor? See Discussion.
","The patient had a partial mastectomy with final diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma with metaplastic stroma. Knowing that metaplastic breast carcinoma has a worse prognosis than other types of breast cancer, is metaplastic stroma a synonym for metaplastic carcinoma when used in this context?
","Code to metaplastic carcinoma, 8575/3. According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""The term 'metaplastic stroma' implies that at least a portion of the carcinoma has undergone a 'metaplastic' change from epithelial in appearance to 'stromal' in appearance. I assume this is what CAP means by 'Invasive mammary carcinoma with matrix production,' which the WHO equates to metaplastic carcinoma.""
","2016" "20160065","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code and MP/H Rule applies to the Histologic Type described as adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous which involves multiple lung tumors present in a single lobe? See Discussion.
","The patient had a lower lobectomy with final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma with the following features: Tumor Focality: Multiple separate tumor nodules in same lobe; Tumor Size: 2.6 cm, 0.7 cm, 0.3 cm and 0.1 cm in greatest dimension; Histologic Type: Adenocarcinoma, mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histologic Grade: Moderately differentiated.
","Assign histology code 8254/3.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not include coding guidelines for mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors. Lung Table 1 (in the Terms and Definitions, pages 37-38, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf ) is very specific about which histologies can be coded to mixed adenocarcinoma (8255/3). Mucinous is not included per the note at the end of Table 1. Per WHO 3rd and 4th Ed Tumors of the Lung, mixed mucinous and non-mucinous tumors of the lung are classified as 8254/3. Mixed invasive mucinous and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma is a synonym for BAC, mucinous and non-mucinous.
","2016" "20160064","Behavior--Prostate: What is the correct behavior of intraductal carcinoma from a prostate biopsy with a Gleason score 4+4=8. While highly aggressive, but not suggestive of invasion, coding behavior as /2 seems inappropriate.
","","WHO classifies intraductal carcinoma of the prostate 8500/2. According to WHO, ""the hallmark of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate is a proliferation of prostate carcinoma cells that is within and may significantly expand the native prostatic ducts and acini, with the basal cell layer at least partially preserved."" Further, differentiation between intraductal carcinoma and infiltrating high-grade carcinoma of the prostate may require basal cell stains. Under Prognosis, WHO states: "" intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on prostate biopsies is often associated with high-grade cancer (with a mean Gleason score of 8) .""
So while it may seem counter-intuitive, assign behavior code /2 when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.
","2016" "20160062","Grade--Kidney: Should WHO/ISUP grade for renal cell carcinoma be coded for cases diagnosed 2016 and later? See discussion.
","
The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System appears to be moving away from using Fuhrman grading toward using WHO/ISUP grade. These seem like similar 4 grade staging systems; however, the SEER Manual specifically states to not use the Special Grade System table for WHO/ISUP. We are seeing the WHO/ISUP grade being used on 2016 pathology reports.
Examples of new grading for renal cell carcinomas
Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Histologic grade (WHO/ISUP 2016): Grade 3 in a background of 2 (of 4).
And
Histologic type: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Histologic grade (ISUP): Grade 2.
","Do not record WHO/ISUP grade in the grade/differentiation field.
Designated fields for this grade system are being proposed for future implementation.
","2016" "20160061","Reportability/Behavior--Small intestine: Is a carcinoid tumor, described as benign, reportable? See Discussion.
","
A segmental resection pathology report states ""benign mucosal endocrine proliferation consistent with a 0.3 cm duodenal carcinoid tumor."" The diagnosis comment further states, ""the separate small endocrine lesion is histologically benign, consistent with a 3 mm carcinoid tumor."" This seems to be an example of a description of a microcarcinoid tumor referenced in SINQ 20160011. However, in this new case the pathologist specifically states the tumor is benign.
The WHO definition of microcarcinoid indicates this is a precursor lesion, which seems to indicate it is not malignant. However, SEER's previous answer stated we should report these tumors because the ICD-O-3 definition of carcinoid is 8240/3. Do you think that the mention of the term ""benign"" in the pathology report is actually related to the size of this lesion? Is the reference to benign mucosal endocrine proliferation referring to the WHO classification (making the case reportable as stated in SINQ 20160011), or is this a situation in which we should apply the Matrix Rule and the case is nonreportable?
","This carcinoid tumor, described as benign, is not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, this case is not reportable because the pathologist uses ""benign"" to describe the mucosal endocrine proliferation and based on that, the neuroendocrine cell proliferation is hyperplasia/benign - not reportable.
","2016" "20160060","Mets at diagnosis fields--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): How are Mets at Diagnosis -- Bone, Brain, Liver, Lung, Lymph Node, and Other -- to be coded for lymphomas in 2016? Are they always 0 if the TNM Stage is I, II, or III? How is bone marrow involvement coded -- in which Mets at Diagnosis field?
","","Note: Answer verified Sept. 2019, still valid for current cases.
Code all mets at diagnosis fields to 0 when the Stage is I, II, or III.
When the lymphoma is Stage IV, one of the mets at dx fields (other than Mets at Dx-Distant lymph nodes) needs to be coded to 1. Stage IV indicates that there is multiple extralymphatic organ involvement, diffuse involvement of an organ; liver, brain, lung or bone involvement, or bone marrow involvement.
For bone, brain, liver, and lung, code these as 1 when these sites are involved and they are not the primary site. This is the same instruction for solid tumor neoplasms.
For mets at dx-distant lymph nodes, always code to 0. For lymphomas, lymph node involvement is included in stage and not based on whether they are regional or distant.
For mets at dx-other, code to 1 for bone marrow involvement or if there is multi extralymphatic organ involvement.
","2016" "20160058","First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are blood thinners, e.g., warfarin, coded as treatment in the Other Therapy data item for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome? See Discussion.
","Under the hematopoietic data base, treatment for polycythemia vera shows chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and phlebotomy. Essential thrombocytopenia shows blood thinners, anti-clotting medications, aspirin, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other therapy (Anagrelide) (for essential thrombocythemia only) and watchful waiting (for asymptomatic patients). Myelodysplastic syndrome shows bone marrow transplant, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and stem cell transplant.
SEER*RX under warfarin says: Per the 2012 Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual (page 10), blood thinners and/or anti-clotting agents are to be coded as treatment (Other Therapy) for the following histologies: 9740/4 Mast cell sarcoma 9741/3 Systemic mastocytosis 9742/3 Mast cell leukemia 9875/3 Chronic myelogenous leukemia BCR/ABL 1 positive 9950/3 Polycythemia vera 9961/3 Primary myelofibrosis 9962/3 Essential thrombocythemia 9963/3 Chronic neutrophilic leukemia 9975/3 Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
","Based on information from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, aspirin and/or other blood thinners are not valid treatment for polycythemia vera and myelodysplastic syndrome. These drugs are often given to relieve symptoms of the disease such as bone pain or side-effects of standard treatments including blood clots. The treatment information found on page 22 (2015 Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasms coding manual) will be updated and ICD-O-3 codes 9950/3 and 9975/3 will be removed from the list. SEER*RX has been updated to reflect this change.
","2016" "20160057","MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What is the histology code for a prostate case whose histology reads “adenoca with mixed ductal and acinar variants?
","","Assign 8523/3.
The 2013 revision to ICD-O-3 has a new code for mixed acinar ductal carcinoma; however, this new code will not be implemented in the U.S. until 2018 or later. Page 7 of the Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Update Implementation document released by NAACCR 1/1/2014 instructs us to use 8523/3 in the meantime.
","2016" "20160056","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular primary with a combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor and embryonal carcinoma? See discussion.
","
Patient had a radical orchiectomy with the final diagnosis of ""Mixed germ cell tumor with the following features -- histologic type: Mixed germ cell tumor (teratoma 50%, yolk sac tumor 25%, and embryonal 25%).""
","Assign 9085/3. Code this combination of teratoma, yolk sac tumor, and embryonal tumor in the testis to mixed germ cell tumor (9085/3) based on the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs.
","2016" "20160055","Reportability--Bone: Is an ""atypical cartilaginous tumor"" reportable? See Discussion.
","Patient had a core needle biopsy of the right acetabulum. Final diagnosis on the path report is: Atypical cartilaginous tumor (formerly chondrosarcoma, grade 1).
Is this cell type reportable? If so, is it reportable only because the pathologist recorded clarifying text in parentheses? If the text in the parentheses was not available, is the histology ""atypical cartilaginous tumor"" reportable?
","Atypical cartilaginous tumor of bone is not reportable. The WHO terminology is ""atypical cartilagenous tumor/chondrosarcoma grade I."" WHO classifies this entity as low malignant potential (behavior code /1).
Chondrosarcoma grade II or grade III is reportable based on the WHO classification of malignant (behavior code /3).
","2016" "20160054","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Melanoma: How many melanoma primaries should be abstracted if, during the workup for a metastatic melanoma of an unknown cutaneous site, an in situ melanoma is also discovered? See Discussion.
","Patient has diagnosis of melanoma with spindle cell features found in a right lower lobectomy specimen. Chart notes indicate this is metastatic from a cutaneous primary of unknown site. Further work up includes a biopsy of the tip of the nose, which is diagnostic for in situ melanoma. Should this be abstracted as two separate primaries, one for an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and the other for an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose? Which MP/H Rule would apply?
","Yes, abstract this as two separate primaries, an invasive melanoma of unknown primary site and an in situ melanoma of the skin on the tip of the nose. Rule M3 applies.
","2016" "20160053","MP/H Rules/Histology: How is the histology coded for an invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia? See Discussion.
","Patient has a perihilar bile duct primary with a microscopic focus of invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in a large papilloma. The MP/H Rules do not address adenocarcinomas arising in a papilloma, only adenocarcinomas arising in an adenoma (or polyp). Should the histology be coded as 8140 for the invasive adenocarcinoma component? Or should the matrix principle be applied and the histology coded as a malignant glandular papilloma (8260/3)?
","Assign 8503/3 for invasive adenocarcinoma arising in a papilloma with high-grade dysplasia, perihilar bile duct primary. Neither ICD-O-3 nor the WHO classification have a code for this specific histology; however, our expert pathologist consultant states 8503/3 is the best available choice based on pages 264 and 273 in the WHO Digestive system classification.
","2016" "20160052","Summary Stage 2000--Lymphoma: How is SEER SS2000 coded for an ocular adnexal lymphoma when it extends from the primary site to adjacent sites that are still orbital structures? See Discussion.
","In this case, the lymphoma arose in the posterior orbit and the primary site was coded as C696 (orbit, NOS). The mass directly extended to at least one ""adjacent"" site, the lacrimal gland. Should SS2000 be coded to 1 (localized) or 5 (regional, NOS) when an ocular adnexal lymphoma arises in the posterior orbit and extends to involve the lacrimal gland? Although both the posterior orbit and the lacrimal gland are parts of the orbit, they have separate ICD-O-3 topography codes. Should extension to multiple sites within the orbit be classified as localized disease?
The issue is what constitutes ""adjacent"" structures for a tumor that arises in the orbit. In an article published by the Indian Journal of Opthamology it states, ""According to the Ann-Arbor staging system, lymphoma confined to the orbit is designated as Stage I, involvement of adjacent structures (sinuses, tonsil and nose) makes it Stage II."" Does SEER agree with this definition of ""adjacent"" structures? Or are the lacrimal gland, ciliary body, retina, conjunctiva and/or choroid ""adjacent"" structures for a lymphoma stated to arise in the posterior orbit?
","Assign SEER SS2000 code 5 (Regional, NOS) for a lymphoma of orbit extending to lacrimal gland. In SEER SS2000, this is Stage IIE: Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues.
","2016" "20160051","Diagnostic confirmation: When a CT guided Fine Needle Aspiration is performed and the pathology report indicates smears and cell block were prepared, if the diagnosis is positive for cancer, can you code diagnostic confirmation as 2 (positive cytology) because of the cell block?
","","Yes, assign diagnostic confirmation code 2 for diagnosis based on smears and cell block from CT guided FNA. This reply pertains to solid tumors.
","2016" "20160050","Reportability--Appendix: Is a mucinous cystic neoplasm with high grade dysplasia of the appendix reportable? See discussion.
","The language appears similar to the mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with high grade dysplasia (8470/2), which was clarified to be reportable in 2014.
","WHO does not list MCN as a histology for the appendix. This case should be clarified with the pathologist.
For pancreas specifically, the term ""mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) with high grade dysplasia"" replaced the term ""mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, noninvasive"" according to WHO. MCN with high grade dysplasia of the pancreas is reportable because it is used in place of the now obsolete terminology. If we did not make the new terminology reportable, trends over time could be affected.
","2016" "20160049","
Grade/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the correct grade for high grade angiosarcoma of the breast a code 3 or 4? The breast usually uses a three grade system but sarcoma is not a typical histologic type of the breast.
","","Assign grade code 4 using the sarcoma table. Nottingham or Bloom-Richardson (BR) Score/Grade does not apply to angiosarcomas. This is a good question and points out needed clarification of the grade rules.
","2016" "20160048","Reportability--Kidney: Is renal cell neoplasm of oncocytosis reportable based on the pathology from a nephrectomy? See Discussion.
","The pathology diagnosis reads: Diagnosis Right Kidney, Laparoscopic Nephrectomy:
-Renal Cell Neoplasm of Oncocytosis (pT1a, pNX See Comment and Template).
-Surgical margins free of tumor.
Kidney, right, nephrectomy:
Tumor histologic type: Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis (see Note)
Sarcomatoid features (%) Not identified
Tumor size: 4 cm (greatest dimension largest tumor)
Other dimensions: 2.7 x 2.5 cm
Macroscopic extent of tumor: Limited to kidney
Focality: Multifocal
Number of tumors: 11 grossly visible, range 0.2 4 cm
Fuhrman grade: 2 of 4
Microscopic extent of tumor:
Perinephric fat invasion: Not identified
Renal sinus invasion: Not identified
Other: N/A
Renal vein involvement: Not identified
Adrenal gland present: No
Involved by tumor: N/A
Direct invasion or metastasis: N/A
Cancer at resection margin: Not identified
Location(s): N/A
Pathologic findings in nonneoplastic kidney: Multiple collections of oncocytic cells
Hilar lymph nodes present: No
Number of involved/number present: N/A
""Thank you for sending this fascinating case. In reviewing the H&E-stained slides, we recognize that multiple lesions of varying sizes are present within the specimen, some with features of oncocytoma, some with those of chromophobe RCC, and yet others with features of both. The immunohistochemical studies for CK7 performed at your institution serve to highlight this point with ""mass #1"" showing focal single cell staining typical of oncocytoma and ""mass #2"" showing a patchy and confluent staining pattern typical of chromophobe RCC. This second mass was also positive with special stain for Hales colloidal iron. As mentioned, the morphology varies somewhat in each tumor, however, every single mass is comprised of cells with eosinophilic (pink to bright red) cytopolasm. Some tumors show more tightly nested or sheet like growth, others are more tubular or microcystic. Another important feature, present on slides of renal cortex are microscopic tumorlets seemingly emanating from eosinophilic tubules. This finding, along with the presence of numerous oncocytic neoplasms is supportive of the above diagnosis. The absence of clinical features to suggest Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome is noted. Although these tumors are not recognized in the current classification of renal tumors, we regard these neoplasms as being a distinct entity, unrelated to both oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and have applied the designation ""renal tumor of oncocytosis"" to such lesions (Gobbo S, et al. Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis have distinct morphologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic profiles. Am J Surg Patholl 34:620-626, 2010). We concur that the expected behavior in these cases is one of indolence.""
","Do not report Renal cell neoplasms of oncocytosis. According to our expert pathologist consultant, these neoplasms do not behave ""in a malignant fashion."" They are not currently classified as malignant and are not reportable to cancer registries.
","2016" "20160047","Reportability--Eye: Is conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) from an excision of the left eye conjunctiva reportable?
","","Conjuctival intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) is reportable. Intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III, is listed in ICD-O-3 as /2. It is reportable for sites other than skin.
","2016" "20160046","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries should be reported for the case below? See discussion.
","1993 Renal pelvis: Papillary urothelial carcinoma
1994 Bladder: Noninvasive bladder ca NOS
6/11/13 Bladder: Noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma
8/19/14 Bladder: urothelial carcinoma in situ
2/13/15 Bladder: Papillary urothelial carcinoma
Would this situation be 2 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis and 1994 Bladder with the 2015 being the same primary as 1993 Renal pelvis? Or 3 primaries - 1993 Renal pelvis, 1994 Bladder, 2015 Bladder?
","Abstract four primaries, 1993 renal pelvis, 1994 bladder, 2013 bladder, and 2015 bladder.
The 1993 renal pelvis diagnosis and the 1994 bladder diagnosis are separate primaries based on the rules in effect at that time (See pages 7-11, http://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/historic/codeman_1992.pdf )
For the remaining diagnoses, the 2007 MP/H rules apply. The 2013 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M7. The 2014 bladder diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6. The 2015 bladder diagnosis is a new primary per rule M5.
","2016" "20160045","Neoadjuvant treatment/Grade--Prostate: How should the grade/differentiation field be coded when hormone therapy is given prior to radiation for metastatic prostate cancer? Is hormone treatment ""neoadjuvant treatment"" in this situation? Per NCCN guidelines, neoadjuvant hormone therapy is strongly discouraged outside of a clinical trial for localized disease. However for metastatic disease, hormone is recommended (gold standard). See discussion.
","8/1/15 CT Exam showed enlarged prostate and left seminal vesicle with multiple enlarged pelvic LNs. Findings: suspicious for prostate cancer with invasion of seminal vesicle. Bone scan findings: positive bone mets in multiple sites. PSA 169.0 (elevated). Patient was started on casodex 8/12/15. A prostate biopsy was performed on 9/16/15 to confirm diagnosis, adenocarcinoma Gleason 4+5. Patient's treatment continued with radiation to bone.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2018
Code the grade/differentiation field from the biopsy for this situation. According to experts consulted, hormone therapy does not alter the grade in this case and grade should be coded based on information after hormone therapy when that is the only grade information available.
","2016" "20160044","MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What is the appropriate histology code for a final diagnosis of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and/or pleomorphic sarcoma, undifferentiated? See Discussion.
","Does the Other Sites MP/H Rule H17 apply in this case, which results in coding the higher histology 8805/3 (undifferentiated sarcoma)? Or does the ""undifferentiated"" statement only refer to grade, which results in coding histology to 8802/3 (pleomorphic sarcoma)?
","Assign 8802/34 to pleomorphic cell sarcoma/undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Pleomorphic is more important than undifferentiated when choosing the histology code in this case. Undifferentiated can be captured in the grade code.
","2016" "20160043","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Should the term ""dedifferentiation"" be used to code sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)? Or is this typically referring to the grade, and not the histologic subtype? See Discussion.
","Pathology report Final Diagnosis: TURBT : Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).
","Assign 8122/3 for urothelial carcinoma, extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation refers to the histologic type. 8122/3 is also correct for the following diagnoses.
Urothelial carcinoma, sarcomatoid carcinoma or sarcomatoid variant 8122/3
Urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features 8122/3
","2016" "20160042","
First course treatment/Date 1st surgical procedure--Colon: Should the date of a polypectomy be recorded in the Date of First Surgical Procedure field when the entire tumor is not removed by polypectomy? See Discussion.
","The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the ""single piece polypectomy"" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy?
","Record the date of the polypectomy as the date of first surgical procedure. Polypectomies are surgery for the purposes of cancer registry data collection regardless of whether or not there is residual tumor after the polypectomy.
","2016" "20160041","First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: How are Surgery of Primary Site and Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded for an eyelid skin primary diagnosed by punch biopsy and treated with an orbital exenteration? See Discussion.
","Unlike most other sites, there is no specific code for a radical surgical procedure of a skin primary. In this case, the patient was diagnosed with a sebaceous cell carcinoma of the lower eyelid skin by punch biopsy. The tumor was large and an orbital exenteration was planned. Despite the extensive surgery performed, skin margins were less than 1 cm. Is an orbital exenteration a ""major amputation"" (code 60) in this case? Given that the margins were not greater than 1 cm, codes 45 - 47 (which includes a minor (local) amputation) don't seem to apply. However, if this procedure cannot be classified as ""minor amputation"" then doesn't it seem overkill to refer to the procedure as a ""major amputation""?
An alternative would be to code Surgery of Primary Site to 32 for the skin resection (punch biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion, margins less than 1 cm) and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 (non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites) to record the removal of the globe and orbit as part of the orbital exenteration. Which is correct?
","There is a similar question in the FORDS forum of the CoC CAnswer Forum. CoC is the curator for the surgery codes.
Surgical Procedure to Primary Site - Gross excision of the lesion, code in 30s series
Surgical Procedure to Other Site (removal of eye) - code 4
","2016" "20160040","
Reportability--Thyroid: Is a final diagnosis of ""non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features"" (NIFTP) reportable when the diagnosis comment states this tumor was historically classified as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma? See Discussion.
","The term ""non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features"" is now being used, instead of the previous classification of an encapsulated malignant thyroid tumor. Recent evidence supports a very minimal risk of aggressive behavior for these tumors, and pathologists in our area are no longer classifying these as malignant in the final diagnosis.
","As of January 1, 2021
Non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) C739 is no longer reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/2021 forward. See the ICD-O-3.2 material on the NAACCR website,https://www.naaccr.org/icdo3/#1582820761121-27c484fc-46a7
_____________________________________________
Answer for cases diagnosed 1-1-2017 to 12/31/2020
Report NIFTP and assign ICD-O-3 morphology code 8343/2. See the NAACCR document, page 3, https://20tqtx36s1la18rvn82wcmpn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/What-You-Need-to-Know-for-2017.pdf
","2016" "20160039","First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: If a procedure stated to be an ""excisional biopsy"" doesn't grossly remove the tumor, should Surgery of Primary Site be coded as an excisional biopsy? See Discussion for example.
","Would you code an excisional biopsy as Surgery for the following case?
The patient presented with a large protruding polypoid anal canal mass. The diagnosis of malignancy was made following a procedure referred to by the surgeon as an excisional biopsy. The protruding portion of the anal canal mass was excised, but the deep margin was grossly involved. The PE exam after the ""excisional biopsy"" found a firm mass, 4 cm in length on DRE. Further work-up with imaging showed gross residual disease extending to adjacent skeletal muscle (external anal sphincter). Although the internal/protruding anal canal portion of the tumor was excised, there was clearly extensive residual tumor. The patient underwent definitive concurrent chemoradiation only; subsequent surgery was not planned or performed.
","Do not record this excisional biopsy as surgery because there was residual macroscopic tumor. See Note 1 under #4 on page 130 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
","2016" "20160038","Birthplace/Place of birth, country: For patients originally born in a country that is currently listed as ""historic only"", where the original birth country now has a one-to-many relationship with the current country, how should the reported original birthplace be coded? (Example: Yugoslavia)
","","Assign code for Europe, NOS (ZZE) for Yugoslavia, NOS, without further information.
","2016" "20160037","Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: What is the histology code for an ovarian tumor described as a mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type?
","","Mucinous borderline tumor, intestinal type, of the ovary is not reportable. The behavior is /1. There is no applicable histology code for this histology when it ocurs in the ovary.
","2016" "20160036","Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the left submandibular gland reportable and how is it coded? See Discussion.
","The physician is calling it an indolent tumor, pT3/NX/M0 stage 3 with positive margins. Is the correct code C509, 8502/3?
","Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) is reportable. MASC is a recently described tumor that predominantly arises in the parotid gland. In this case, if the primary site is submandibular gland, assign C080. We contacted our expert pathologist and he stated that the best code to use for MASC is 8502/3. Override any edits triggered by the combination of C080 and 8502/3.
","2016" "20160035","Reportability/Histology--Pituitary Gland: How are Rathke cleft cyst and Rathke pouch tumor distinguished and are they both reportable?
","","Rathke cleft cyst is not reportable. Cysts are not neoplastic. However, Rathke pouch tumor (C751, 9350/1) is a reportable neoplasm for cases diagnosed 2004 and later. The Rathke pouch is coded to the pituitary gland. Benign and borderline pituitary tumors have been reportable since 2004.
","2016" "20160034","First course treatment/Immunotherapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is donor leukocyte infusion for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms coded as a bone marrow transplant per the Hematopoetic Manual or as immunotherapy per SEER Inquiry System (SINQ) 20110048? See Discussion.
","In the Hematopoetic Manual, page 22, it is states: ""The use of donor leukocyte infusions for treatment of hematopoietic neoplasms, specifically leukemias, is increasing. Abstract as bone marrow transplant when a reportable hematopoietic neoplasm is treated with donor leukocyte infusion, even if it is not listed in the treatment section of the Heme db for the specific neoplasm."" Question 20110048 in the SEER Inquiry, it is stated ""Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy."" Donor lymphocyte infusion and donor leukocyte infusions are the same procedure. Please clarify discrepancy as coding is needed for a case treated with donor lymphocytic infusion.
","Code donor lymphocyte infusion as immunotherapy. SINQ 20110048 is correct. The Hematopoietic Manual will be corrected during the next update.
","2016" "20160033","First course teatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Is microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to a surgery code? See Discussion.
","As of 2013, radiofrequency ablation is coded to ""radiation therapy,"" chemoembolization is coded to ""chemotherapy,"" and microwave ablation code to ""other."" Or, is coding microwave ablation (using heat not alcohol) coded to surgical code ""16""? The latest documentation year that I could find in the SEER website regarding the above was 2013. I would appreciate clarification/confirmation of correct coding especially for microwave ablation.
","According to a consensus answer of the technical advisory group, a small group of representatives from each standard setter that meets periodically, microwave tumor ablation should be coded as surgery. For liver, assign code 16 (Heat-Radio-Frequency ablation (RFA); for kidney, assign code 15 (Thermal ablation).
","2016" "20160032","Reportability--Brain: Is benign lymphangioma of the brain (9170/0) reportable? It is not on the list of non-malignant blood vessel tumors in the National Program of Cancer Registries Clarifications for Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors.
","","Lymphangioma of the brain or CNS is not reportable. Lymphangioma is a malformation of the lymphatic system. Even though it has an ICD-O-3 code, do not report it.
","2016" "20160031","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: What is the code for Rosette-forming glioneural tumor from a pathology report of a brain tumor biopsy for a date of diagnosis in 2015? See Discussion.
","This diagnosis is not listed in the ICD-O-3 though it is listed as code 9509/1 for this specific tumor in the 2007 WHO classification of Tumours of Central Nervous System. (See link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html.)
","Assign 9505/1 for Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor. The new code, 9509/1, has not been implemented in the United States. 9505/1 is to be used until the new code is implemented. See page 7 of the NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-D Implementation, effective January 1, 2014, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466.
","2016" "20160030","Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable?
","","Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information.
","2016" "20160029","Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion.
","We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct?
","I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions.
","2016" "20160028","MP/H/Histology--Sarcoma: How should Ewing Sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) be coded for a 2012 case? See Discussion.
","SEER SINQ 20031051 applies to cases diagnosed before 2007 and advises: Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules.
","Apply 2007 MP/H rule H6 and assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code that reflects PNET (9364/3).
According to the WHO Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone, though Ewing sarcoma ICD-O-3 code is 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma with a higher degree of neuroectodermal differentiation present is classically termed peripheral neuroectodermal tumors (PNET). WHO does not offer guidance how to classify tumors stated to be Ewing sarcoma PNET.
Histology code 9364/3 is assigned for a Ewing/PNET that arises outside of the brain/CNS. Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor (PNET) and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PPNET) are Ewing family tumors.
Histology code 9473/3 (PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, central primitive neuroectodermal tumor, or supratentorial PNET) is only used for tumors arising inside the brain/CNS.
","2016" "20160026","MP/H/Histology--Pituitary: Would you code Crooke cell adenoma as 8272/0 pituitary adenoma?
","","Yes, code Crooke cell adenoma to 8272/0 pituitary adenoma. According to the WHO classification, it is a variant of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) producing adenoma (8272/0).
","2016" "20160025","MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the correct histology code for a NUT midline carcinoma?
","","Code histology to 8010/3.
NUT carcinoma is identified by the NUTM1 gene rearrangement.
NUT midline carcinomas (NMC) are lethal and morphologically indistinguishable from other poorly diff carcinomas. They are epithelial tumors which can range from undifferentiated carcinomas to carcinomas with prominent squamous differentiation.
A new proposed ICD-O-3 code has been suggested for NUT tumors but it is not yet approved for implementation. Do not use the new code until it is approved for use in the United States.
","2016" "20160024","
Reportability--Melanoma: Please explain how a CTR is to interpret the guideline in the MP/H rules (Cutaneous Melanoma): Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Is this to mean that evolving melanoma in situ is not reportable? Or should we follow the guidelines in SEER Question 20130022 that states the reportability terms for melanoma and melanoma in situ.
","","Follow the guidelines in SINQ 20130022 for now. When the MP/H rules are revised, new instructions will be implemented.
See also SINQ 200120078 and 20110069.
","2016" "20160023","Grade/Histology--Digestive System: What is the grade for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of gastrointestinal morphologies described as: 1) NET G1 (M8240/3) and NET G2 (M8249/3) or 2) neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)? The SEER Instructions for Coding Grade for 2014+, Coding for Solid Tumors section, #3 state: Code the grade shown below (6th digit) for specific histologic terms that imply a grade. NET and NEC are not included in the specific terms.
","","You may code grade as follows.
Grade 1 – NET G1 (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – NET G2 (M8249/3)
Grade 1 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, low grade (M8240/3) or neuroendocrine carcinoma, well differentiation (M8240/3)
Grade 2 – neuroendocrine carcinoma, moderate differentiation (M8249/3)
","2016" "20160022","MP/H/Histology--Breast: What MP/H Rule, histology, and behavior code for a breast primary apply to the following?
2 foci DCIS, solid, high grade (Grade 3) w/microca++
","","Apply the Multiple Primaries/Histology, Breast Rule H3: DCIS and a more specific in situ are coded to the more specific histology term which in this case is solid. Code the histology to ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type (8230/2). Based on the information provided, there is no invasive component. The term ""microca ++"" means micro-calcifications are present, not micro carcinoma.
","2016" "20160021","Primary Site--Stomach: How do I code the primary site when the operative report and pathology report state that the tumor site is incisura of the stomach?
","","Assign C163. Incisura, incisura angularis, gastric angular notch, angular incisure of stomach all refer to the sharp angular depression in the lesser curvature of the stomach at the junction of the body with the pyloric canal. See Gastric angular notch in #12 on page 76 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf. See also the SEER training website, #12 on the illustration corresponds to the angular notch, http://training.seer.cancer.gov/ugi/anatomy/stomach.html. We will correct the key for this illustration.
","2016" "20160020","Reportability--Gallbladder: Is high grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder reportable?
","","High grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia of the gallbladder is reportable. Assign code 8148/2. It is also known as biliary intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or BilIN-3.
","2016" "20160019","Reportability--Lung: Is a case of pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs. low grade leiomyosarcoma reportable, and if so, what is the primary site and histology code? See Discussion.
","Patient presents with an abnormal chest x-ray. PET reveals 4.6 cm left lower lobe mass and several additional bilateral nodules measuring up to 1.6 cm. Biopsy was recommended and is positive for metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm. ER/PR are positive. Mayo consult on biopsy agrees with histology. The differential diagnosis includes benign metastasizing leiomyoma and low grade leiomyosarcoma. Comment: If these nodules remain small and do not progressively grow would consider this metastasizing leiomyoma. Physicians state bilateral pulmonary metastatic leiomyoma (favored) vs low grade leiomyosarcoma. Tamoxifen was started. Patient has a history of uterine fibroids. Several months later, imaging reveals stable bilateral multi pulmonary nodules and left lower lobe mass but persistent. Surgery was recommended but cancelled due to insurance.
","This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The histologic diagnosis is ""metastatic histologically benign smooth muscle neoplasm."" The physicians seem to agree with the histologic diagnosis, benign metastasizing leiomyoma (BML). The WHO classification and ICD-O-3 assign 8898/1 to ""metastasizing leiomyoma."" WHO states ""This resembles a typical leiomyoma but it is found in the lungs of women with a history of typical uterine leiomyomas."" A recent article states ""Because of the hormone-sensitive characteristics of BML, treatments are based on hormonal manipulation along with either surgical or medical oophorectomy."" Tamoxifen treatment is in keeping with the BML diagnosis.
","2016" "20160018","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a colloid cyst at the foramen of Monro reportable?
","","Colloid cyst at the foramen of Monro is not reportable. Colloid cysts are endodermal congenital malformations and do not have an ICD-O-3 code. See the Glossary for Registrars, http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/glossary/view/542eeea1102c1d14697ef8ab/?q=colloid
","2016" "20160017","Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: Please further explain the SEER Note under Melanoma surgery codes 30-36 for these two examples. Are both examples coded 31?
1. Shave bx: +melanoma in situ, +microscopic margins Wide excision: no residual melanoma in situ
2. Shave bx: melanoma, +microscopic margin Wide excision: Melanoma, margins negative (margin status negative but distance not stated)
","","Revised answer: Assign surgery code 30 for both examples based on the SEER Note on the top of page 2 in the Surgery of Primary Site Codes for Skin: If it is stated to be a wide excision or reexcision, but the margins are unknown, code to 30.
","2016" "20160016","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can the histology for a high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having ""extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation"" be coded to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3)?
Example; TURBT, Final Diagnosis - Urothelial carcinoma, high grade. Type/grade comment: Extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is present (40-50% of tumor volume).
","","Code high grade urothelial carcinoma described as having ""extensive sarcomatoid dedifferentiation"" to sarcomatoid transitional cell carcinoma (8122/3).
","2016" "20160015","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Could you please clarify Note 2 found in Rule M10, which is "" 'Transformations to' (acute neoplasms) and 'Transformations from' (chronic neoplasms) are defined for each applicable histology in the database."" Do the neoplasms being considered have to contain the words 'chronic' and/or 'acute'?
","","Hematopoietic neoplasms that transform generally don't have 'chronic' or 'acute' as part of their preferred name. The 'chronic' and 'acute' designations are determined by the usual course of the neoplasm. Chronic neoplasms are generally slow growing while acute neoplasms grow fast and are more widespread. Not all Hematopoietic neoplasms transform. Each neoplasm that has the ability to transform has the transformations listed under the 'Transformations to' and/or 'Transformation from' sections in the Hematopoietic database.
For example, Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (histology code 9680/3) has no histologies/neoplasms listed under 'transformations to.' This means that this neoplasm does not transform to any other neoplasm. There are multiple histologies/neoplasms listed under 'Transformations from' indicating the neoplasms listed under the Transformations from are the chronic neoplasms, and DLBCL is the acute neoplasm. If DLBCL (9680/3) occurs at the same time, within 21 days, or greater than 21 days of any of the histologies listed under 'Transformations From,' rules M8-M13 apply. If DLBCL (9680/3) occurred at the same time as a neoplasm not listed in the Transformations sections, the acute and chronic rules do not apply.
","2016" "20160014","Surgery of primary site--Lung: Should microwave ablation be coded as treatment for lung cancer, and if so, how should it be coded?
","","Code microwave tumor ablation as surgery. For lung, assign code 15.
This question was discussed by the technical advisory group – a small group of representatives from each standard setter which meets periodically. The group agreed on this consensus answer.
","2016" "20160013","Reportability--Breast: Is mammary fibromatosis reportable and if so, what histology code is assigned? See discussion.
","The pathologist completed a CAP protocol using soft tissue. Pathology revealed a 2.5 cm tumor with invasion of skeletal muscle with deep margins positive for tumor.
","Mammary fibromatosis is not reportable. The WHO classification for breast tumors assigns mammary fibromatosis a behavior code of /1. According to WHO, mammary fibromatosis ""is a locally infiltrative lesion without metastatic potential…""
","2016" "20160012","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a thalamic amyloidoma reportable if so what histology code is used?
","","Thalamic amyloidoma is not reportable. Amyloidoma (tumoral amyloidosis, amyloid tumor) is a tumor-like deposit of amyloid. It is not neoplastic. Amyloid is a protein derived substance deposited in various clinical settings.
","2016" "20160011","Reportability--Stomach: Are microcarcinoid tumors reportable? See discussion.
","SINQ 20081076 states carcinoid tumorlets of the lung are not reportable and are defined as being less than 5 mm in diameter and benign. Per the WHO Classification of Digestive Tumours, microcarcinoid tumors are precursor lesions/nodules measuring greater than 0.5 mm, but less than 5 mm (0.5 cm). Is the term microcarcinoid tumor equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet, and therefore not reportable? Or is a microcarcinoid tumor a reportable type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET)?
","Microcarcinoid and carcinoid tumors are reportable. The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8240/3. Microcarcinoid is a designation for neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach when they are less than 0.5 cm. in size. Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach are designated carcinoid when they are 0.5 cm or larger.
The term microcarcinoid tumor is not equivalent to carcinoid tumorlet.
","2016" "20160010","Grade--Head & Neck: How should grade be coded for a tonsillar primary (or other solid tumor) with resection pathology final diagnosis of poorly differentiated SCC with histologic grade: G2-3 of 3. See discussion.
","We are seeing multiple head and neck cases with unclear or multiple grade assignments. Another example is alveolar mucosa SCC with histologic grade stated as: Moderately differentiated (G2 of 3). Grade Coding for Solid Tumor instruction 5.b. is not clear regarding this situation. Does a statement of differentiation take priority? Should we disregard the differentiation statement and code using the 3-grade systems?
","Use the three-grade system table in instruction #7.b to code grade for the situations you describe. Use the Grade Coding Instructions in order. Instruction #7.b (three-grade system) comes before instruction #8 (terminology).
http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/
","2016" "20160009","MP/H Rules/Histology--Appendix: What is the histology for an appendix resection diagnosis of ""Malignant neoplasm of the appendix with the following features: Histologic type: Adenocarcinoma ex goblet cell carcinoid with mucin production (adenocarcinoma arising from goblet cell carcinoid)""? Is this histology best coded to a mixed adenocarcinoma/carcinoid tumor (8244/3)?
","","Code histology to combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma (8244/3). The tumor is a mix of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid.
","2016" "20160008","Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Is a statement of LI-RADS 5 or LI-RADS 4 diagnostic of HCC? See discussion.
","We are seeing more use of LI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be LI-RADS Category 5 or LI-RADS Category 4, with no specific statement of HCC. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the LI-RADS categories as below.
LIRADS (v2014) categories
M - Possible non-HCC malignancy
1 - Definitely Benign
2 - Probably Benign
3 - Intermediate Probability for HCC
4 - Probably HCC
5 - Definitely HCC (concordant with OPTN 5)
A previous SINQ, 20010094, indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, but those BI-RADS definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent clinical statement of HCC, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scan's impression, which states LI-RADS category 4 or 5, as the Diagnosis Date?
","Report cases with an LI-RADS category LR-5 or LR-5V based on the 2014 American College of Radiology definitions, http://nrdr.acr.org/lirads/
Do not report cases based only on an LI-RADS category of LR-4.
Use the date of the LR-5 or LR-5V scan as the date of diagnosis when it is the earliest confirmation of the malignancy.
","2016" "20160007","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: If the diagnosis is a single primary involving both breasts, do we code 41 Surgery Primary site with 1 in Surgery Other site, or code 76 Surgery Primary site with 0 in Surgery Other site? See discussion.
","In Appendix C- Breast (SEER Manual 2015) it states under the codes for TOTAL MASTECTOMY (Codes 40-49, 75): For single primaries only, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site (NAACCR Item # 1294). [SEER Note: Example of single primary with removal of involved contralateral breast--Inflammatory carcinoma involving both breasts. Bilateral simple mastectomies. Code Surgery of Primary Site 41 and code Surgical Procedure of Other Site 1.] HOWEVER, underneath that it states code 76 is used for: 76 Bilateral mastectomy for a single tumor involving both breasts, as for bilateral inflammatory carcinoma. So
","Assign code 41 with 1 in surgery other site for simple mastectomy. Assign code 76 with 0 in surgery other site for a more extensive mastectomy.
","2016" "20160005","Reportability--Skin: Is this a reportable skin cancer? See discussion.
","Patient had a skin biopsy and this is the interpretation: NASAL SUPRATIP: INVASIVE BASAL CELL CARCINOMA OF SKIN WITH NEUROENDOCRINE DIFFERENTIATION
NOTE: The deep margin is positive for tumor; peripheral margins negative for tumor. The tumor has a basaloid appearance with focal areas appearing slightly squamoid, and it demonstrates myxoid/mucinous retraction from the stroma. It does not demonstrate peripheral palisading of cells within tumor nests and has nuclear chromatin which suggests neuroendocrine differentiation. Mitotic rate is more brisk than typical basal cell carcinoma as well. The differential diagnosis includes basal cell carcinoma with or without neuroendocrine differentiation, basal cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and metastatic small cell carcinoma. The tumor is further characterized per immunostains x 9 (controls work well). Tumor cells are positive for Ber EP4 and p63; focally positive for Chromagranin; while negative for EMA, CK20, CK7, TTF-1, CD56 and Synaptophysin. Overall, the staining pattern supports basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation.
","Basal cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the skin is not reportable to SEER.
In this case, the pathologist discussed several possible options, and determined that the final diagnosis is basal cell ca with neuroendocrine diff based at least partially on the immunostains.
","2016" "20160004","First course treatment/Other therapy: How is Sirolimus (Rapamycin) to be coded when given with known chemotherapy agents in a clinical trial? See discussion.
","The SEER*Rx Database lists Sirolimus as an ancillary agent under the Category section, but as an mTOR inhibitor under the Subcategory. The Remarks section indicates Sirolimus (AKA Rapamycin) is an immunosuppressant, but is also a type of serine/threonine kinase inhibitor. Other types of kinase inhibitors (including Temsirolimus) are types of Chemotherapy. Although the Coding section states this drug should not be coded, Primary Sites (NSCLC and glioblastoma) are listed for this drug.
The SEER*Rx Database page for this drug is confusing. Please address the following.
1) Should Sirolimus not be coded when it is being given as a kinase inhibitor or an immunosuppressant?
2) If Sirolimus is ever treatment, should it be coded only for the primary sites listed?
3) If Sirolimus is given as part of a non-blind clinical trial for another site other than NSCLC or glioblastoma, should the Other Therapy field be coded to 2 [experimental - other treatment]?
","Sirolimus is used to treat GVHD (graft versus host disease) and is not coded as treatment. Even though the sub-category is mTOR inhibitor it does not automatically mean it is a chemotherapeutic agent. Sirolimus affects cells differently than Temsirolimus. The chemical compounds differ between these drugs. In order to code rapamycin, the drug given must be stated to be either the analog or ester compound. The SEER*RX database has been corrected and NSCLC/glioblastoma are no longer listed for sirolimus.
We researched clinical trials and found several that include sirolimus with other chemotherapy drugs for patients who either have received or will be receiving bone marrow transplants for hematologic diseases. In this case it is not coded. There are a few trials that are looking at sirolimus as a treatment for bladder, prostate, nerve sheath tumors, MDS, and AML. For these cases it would be coded in Other (code 2).
","2016" "20160003","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported for a diagnosis of Hurthle cell carcinoma (2.7 cm) and papillary carcinoma (0.3 cm) in the thyroid? See discussion.
","SINQ 20110028 includes a note that states ""Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO."" That case is a little different in that the Hurthle cell carcinoma was stated to be a probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma. The case above does not include that statement.
Is Hurthle cell carcinoma a type of follicular carcinoma? Does rule M6 (follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid w/in 60 days) apply, report a single primary? Or does rule M17 (tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes different at the third digit) apply thus leading to multiple primaries (8290 for Hurthle cell and 8260 for papillary thyroid carcinoma)?
","Apply rule M6 and report a single primary.
Hurthle cell carcinoma is a snynonym for follicular carcinoma of the thyroid.
","2016" "20160002","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which is the correct histology code to use and which MP/H rule applies in the case of a single lumpectomy specimen that demonstrates two separate tumors with the following histologies.
1) Invasive lobular carcinoma
2) Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features
See discussion.
","Does ductal carcinoma with tubular features qualify for Breast MP/H Rule H28? Or, is it more appropriate to strictly follow Table 2 (not a type of ductal tumor) and apply Rule H29, thus losing the lobular component?
","Abstract a single primary using Rule M13. Assign 8523/3 using rule H29. The code for invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features (8523/3) is higher than the code for invasive lobular carcinoma (8520/3). H28 does not apply because 8523/3 is not included as a type of duct carcinoma on Table 2.
","2016" "20160001","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Rectum: How many primaries does this person have and what is the correct histology? See discussion.
","Rectal polyp excised in June, 2012, found to have adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma. Additional colorectal biopsies in November; all were negative. Another rectal polyp removed in December 2012 showing a tubulovillous adenoma with focal carcinoma in situ. Then, in February, 2013 another rectal polyp removed. This was diagnosed as mod. diff. adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, infiltrating into submucosa, seen in a background of tubulovillous adenoma. Surgical margins free (mucin %=40%). Finally, in May, 2013, a low anterior resection with no residual adenocarcinoma.
This appears to be adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps (8221/3), although the final path from May 2013 described one benign polyp and said, 'no other masses, suspicious lesions or polyps are identified.' Going through the MP/H rules, both M13 and M14 result in this being a single primary, and come before the rule about an invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days later is a new primary. The original abstract was coded C209 and 8263/2. If this is a single primary, should it be changed to 8221 with a behavior code of 3? Is this scenario another example of when to change the original diagnosis based on subsequent information?
","Abstract a single primary and code as 8263/3. Other Sites rule M14 applies. The histology code is 8263/3 based on rules H28 and H12. Apply H28 first, make a second pass through the H rules and apply H12. See slide 18 in the ""Beyond the Basics"" presentation for applicable instructions on a similar situation, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf
This case is an example of the need to update the original abstract based on more complete, subsequent, information.
","2016" "20150067","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: What is the correct histology for this diagnosis? See discussion.
","Procedure: Nephrectomy
Laterality: Left
Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA
Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)
Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated
Pattern of growth: Solid
Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm
Local invasion: Present
Renal vein invasion: None
Surgical margins: Negative
Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable
Adrenal gland: Not submitted
Lymph nodes: Not present
Pathologic stage: T1b
There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.
","Assign histology code 8312, renal cell ca, NOS. There is no specific code for the solid variant of renal cell carcinoma.
","2015" "20150066","Grade--Breast: Do you take grade from the most representative specimen along with the histology? What is the correct histology/grade combination? See discussion.
","
Breast biopsy (from hospital A): DCIS, solid, cribriform, comedo type, high nuclear grade
Breast Lumpectomy (from hospital B): DCIS, cribriform type, nuclear grade 1, tumor 2.5cm
","Assign 8201/2 for this case.
MP/H rules are to code histology based on the specimen with the most tumor tissue. That would be the lumpectomy in this case. The histology is DCIS, cribriform type.
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_instructions.pdf
The general rule for grade is to code the highest grade specified within the applicable grading system. For the case information provided, follow instruction #5, nuclear grade: use Coding for Solid Tumors #7: 2-, 3-, or 4- grade system. High nuclear grade (grade code 3 for breast) is higher than nuclear grade 1 (grade code 1).
Reference: http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/
","2015" "20150065","First course treatment/Chemotherapy/Drug category: Instructions in SEER*Rx state that Ibrance should be coded as chemotherapy. They also state that it is an endocrine-based therapy. Local physicians refer to Ibrance as hormone therapy. Please clarify.
","","For cancer registry data collection, follow the instructions in SEER*Rx. It is important for all data collection to be consistent for reporting of cancer information.
Per the FDA: Ibrance is a chemotheraputic agent which was approved for use WITH Letrozole. Letrozole is a hormonal drug which may be why the physicians are stating the patient is receiving hormones. Ibrance should not be given alone to treat breast cancer. This drug will not be changing categories in SEER*Rx.
","2015" "20150064","Primary site--Head & Neck: When there is invasive in one subsite and in situ in another, do you code the subsite with the invasive only? Would the correct site be C320, C328, or C329? See discussion.
","LARYNGOSCOPY - ENDOLARYNGEAL EXAM WAS GROSSLY UNREMARKABLE EXCEPT THAT SHE APPEARS TO HAVE A T1A SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF THE RIGHT TRUE VOCAL FOLD. IT EXTENDS FROM ALMOST THE ANTERIOR COMMISSURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VOCAL PROCESS AND IS EXOPHYTIC IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE VENTRICLE OR ONTO THE FALSE VOCAL FOLD. NO SUBGLOTTIC EXTENSION IS SEEN. A. RIGHT POSTERIOR FALSE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA IN SITU. B. RIGHT POSTERIOR TRUE VOCAL CORD FOLD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. C. RIGHT MID TRUE VOCAL CORD, BIOPSY: SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, SUSPICIOUS FOR INVASION. D. RIGHT ANTERIOR TRUE VOCAL FOLD, BIOPSY: INVASIVE AND IN SITU SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA, MODERATELY DIFFERENTIATED.
","See the Head & Neck Terms and Definitions for guidance on coding the primary site, pages 17-18, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
Based on the information provided, use the statement from the endoscopy report and assign primary site to right true vocal fold [cord], C320.
","2015" "20150062","Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2)
","The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be ""low grade"" (code 2) or ""high grade"" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder.
","Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
1. Assign grade code 2
2. Assign grade code 4
See the note below the table in instruction #7.
","2015" "20150061","Reportability--Vulva: Is this reportable? We have begun to see the following diagnosis on biopsies of the vulva with the statement below. The diagnosis is being given as simply VULVAR INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA, no grade is noted. See discussion.
","The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ. Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3): 161-169
","Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia with no grade specified is not reportable. Reportability instructions have not changed. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
","2015" "20150060","Reportability/MP/H Rules: Where can I find documentation on how to accession malignant tumors in transplanted organs? See discussion.
","A patient was diagnosed with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in 2010, and underwent a hepatectomy, and then received a donor liver. In 2014, HCC was discovered in the liver once again. This likely is a new primary, but there are no specific rules to cover this. There are many odd situations involving transplanted organs, many of which pose reportability and multiple primary problems.
","Accession the new tumor in the transplanted organ as you would any other new/second primary. As transplants have become more common especially for liver, lung, and kidney, we are seeing more of these types of cases. We are adding instructions to the revised MP/H rules on coding subsequent primaries when they occur in a transplanted organ. We are also looking at adding a data field that will identify cancers/tumors which arose in a transplanted organ. We feel this is important to track for analysis. Until the revised MP/H rules are implemented, we will look at adding general coding instructions to the SEER Program Manual for transplants.
","2015" "20150059","Primary Site--Liver: What is the topography code for combined hepatocellular carcinoma/cholangiocarcinoma (M-8180/3) especially when there is no documentation that intrahepatic bile duct is the tumor site? Reports usually just indicate a liver mass(es) but since the intrahepatic ducts are within the liver, is the code C221 due to the cholangiocarcinoma component, thus making the case stageable?
","","If there is no further information about where the cancer originated, assign C220. Use ICD-O-3 as the source for coding topography. The topography code associated with combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (8180/3) is C220 when there is no other information available, according to ICD-O-3.
","2015" "20150058","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries.
","","If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary.
","2015" "20150057","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is this diagnosis reportable? If this neoplasm originated in the spinal cord, it is reportable, correct?
Specimen is described as a 'spinal cord mass.' The final diagnosis is 'fragments of adipose tissue demonstrating vascular proliferations consistent with angiolipoma. No histologic evidence of malignancy.' The microscopic description says: Sections of the spinal mass reveal bone, cartilage, fibrous tissue and adipose tissue. The adipose tissue demonstrates increased vascularity with thin walled blood vessels seen with islands of delicate fibrous stroma. The histologic findings are compatible with fragments of angiolipoma.
","","The neoplasm is reportable if it originated in the spinal cord or is intradural (within the spinal dura; spinal nerve roots are intradural). If there is not enough information to determine the exact site of origin, do not report the case.
","2015" "20150055","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this 2 primaries? In 2011, a patient had a spinal mass biopsied positive for DLBCL and follicular lymphoma. The heme rules make this one primary coded as DLBCL. Patient had 2 rounds of chemo, but in 2014, he had a recurrent tumor in the same location. The 2014 biopsy was follicular lymphoma. Is this a new primary -- conversion of acute to chronic after treatment? Or is it the same, since FL was diagnosed in the original specimen?
","","Rule M13 applies, abstract as two primaries. Since both DLBCL and FL were present in 2011, rule M2 does not fit -- not a single histology. Rule M13 reflects the situation in this case much better: an acute neoplasm which was treated and a chronic neoplasm diagnosed later.
","2015" "20150054","Primary Site--Skin: Should cutaneous leiomyosarcoma be coded to primary skin of site (C44_) or soft tissue (C49_)?
","","Code cutanteous leiomyosarcoma to skin. Leiomyosarcoma can originate in the smooth muscle of the dermis. The WHO classification designates this as cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. The major portion of the tumor is in the dermis, although subcutaneous extension is present in some cases.
","2015" "20150052","Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the best primary site code for an undifferentiated sarcoma of the pulmonary artery? See discussion.
","Consolidation of the case: The operating hospital stated: SOFT TISSUE: Resection: Procedure: Radical resection Other: Pneumonectomy Tumor Site: Right pulmonary artery - They used code C383 (mediastinum NOS). The consulting hospital stated: Lung, right, pneumonectomy: High grade sarcoma consistent with intimal sarcoma; tumor involves pulmonary artery. They used code C449 (other soft tissue NOS). Would C493 (soft tissue thorax) be correct?
","Code the primary site to pulmonary artery, C493. According to the WHO classification of tumors, intimal sarcomas are malignant mesenchymal tumors arising in large blood vessels. They show mostly intraluminal growth with obstruction of the vessel. They may occur in the pulmonary vessels or, less often, in the aorta.
","2015" "20150051","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is schwannoma of the extracranial part of a cranial nerve reportable? Some cranial nerves, like facial nerve, have intracranial and extracranial branches.
","","An extracranial schwannoma is not reportable. The schwannoma must arise on the intracranial part of the nerve to be reportable.
","2015" "20150050","Reportability: Is penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type, reportable? See discussion.
","Foreskin circumcision shows: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type (differentiated PeIN). If reportable, how would the histology and behavior be coded? Is this behavior /2?
","For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
Differentiated penile intraepithelial neoplasia (differentiated PeIN), is reportable (8071/2).
Please note: Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 (PeIN 3) is also reportable to SEER (C600-C609, 8077/2).
","2015" "20150049","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is pseudotumor cerebri reportable?
","","Pseudotumor cerebri is not reportable. It is not a neoplasm. The pressure inside the skull is increased and the brain is affected in a way that appears to be a tumor, but it is not a tumor.
","2015" "20150048","Reportability--Skin: Is low grade trichoblastic carcinoma, with a small focus of high grade carcinoma of the scalp reportable? See discussion.
","Pathology report states: the individual nodules of trichoblastic cells resemble those seen in trichoblastoma, but the lesion is very poorly circumscribed with an infiltrative border that extends into the subcutis. the lesion may behave in a locally aggressive fashion, and should be completely removed. High grade trichoblastic carcinomas can metastasize.
","Trichoblastic carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. The WHO classification lists trichoblastic carcinoma as a synonym for basal cell carcinoma, 8090/3. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin is not reportable. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf.
","2015" "20150047","Reportability--Bladder: Is a positive UroVysion test alone diagnostic of bladder cancer? See discussion.
","The UroVysion website says that standard procedures, e.g., cytology, cystoscopy, take precedence over the UroVysion test. The Quest Diagnostics website says that ""A positive result is consistent with a diagnosis of bladder cancer or bladder cancer recurrence, either in the bladder or in another site within the urinary system. A negative result is suggestive of the absence of bladder cancer but does not rule it out."" Would we pick up the case if the UroVysion test was positive but the standard procedures were negative or non-diagnostic?
","Do not report the case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report the case if there is a physician statement of malignancy and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
","2015" "20150046","Reportability--Appendix: Is the appendix the primary site for a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination? See discussion.
","Patient had an appendectomy revealing a low grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN) with diffuse peritoneal dissemination. Patient now with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which revealed metastatic disease in the abdomen, omentum, pelvic peritoneum, peri-cecal, and gallbladder.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022
Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable, even when it spreads within the peritoneal cavity, according to our expert pathologist consultant. Peritoneal spread of this /1 neoplasm does not indicate malignancy. It is still /1 when there is spread of LAMN in the peritoneal cavity.
","2015" "20150045","MP/H/Histology--Thyroid: What is the histology code for primary site of thyroid cancer with the histology of papillary thyroid carcinoma, classical and oncocytic type?
","","Code the histology to 8342/3, thyroid oncocytic (oxyphillic) papillary carcinoma.
","2015" "20150044","Reportability--Ovary: Is micropapillary serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary reportable? What are the differences between “noninvasive"" and “low malignant potential?"" See discussion.
","Pathology report reads left ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), fragmented; right ovarian excrescence and posterior cul-de-sac: noninvasive implants identified; right ovary: noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC), scattered autoimplants (noninvasive); tumor is present on ovarian surface, noninvasive autoimplants
","Noninvasive low grade (micropapillary) serous carcinoma (MPSC) of the ovary is reportable. Assign code 8460/2, applying the ICD-O-3 matrix concept to this noninvasive carcinoma. Noninvasive can be used as a synonym for in situ, ICD-O-3 behavior code /2. See page 66 in the softcover ICD-O-3. Low malignant potential (LMP) means that the neoplasm is not malignant, but has some chance of behaving in a malignant fashion. LMP can be used as a synonym for ICD-O-3 behavior code /1, see page 66.
","2015" "20150043","Seq no-central--Brain and CNS: How should subsequent tumors be sequenced when the patient has a history of a brain tumor, with no information on the behavior of the brain tumor? According to the sequencing rules, it appears some assumption must be made regarding the behavior of the brain tumor.
","","Sequence the brain tumor in the 60-87 series when you do not know the behavior. If you have reason to believe the brain tumor was malignant, sequence it in the 00-59 series.
","2015" "20150042","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is the surgery code 42 or 52? Does it matter that the procedure states no axillary LN, but the pathology found 2 additional LN? See discussion.
","
Procedure stated = Bilateral skin-sparing mastectomies, left axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy. On the pathology report it indicates two additional lymph nodes were removed that were not SLN. The axillary aspect measures 2 x 2 x 1 cm. Two lymph nodes are identified ranging from 0.5 up to 1 cm. The lymph nodes are bisected and entirely submitted. Final Diagnosis Left breast, mastectomy including nipple: no residual carcinoma; FINAL DIAGNOSIS for LN = Lymph nodes, left axillary sentinel #1; excision: Two lymph nodes examined - negative for tumor (0/2); Two lymph nodes - negative for tumor (0/2)
","Assign surgery of primary site code 42. It is possible to obtain lymph nodes in a mastectomy specimen without an axillary dissection. Remember to capture the excised lymph nodes in the scope of lymph node surgery field.
","2015" "20150041","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does rule M10 apply in this situation?
L breast biopsy = INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA
L breast simple mastectomy = 2.0 cm INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA with an incidental finding of separate 1.0 cm INVASIVE LOBULAR CARCINOMA; pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different. The tumors are both pure Ductal/pure Lobular.
","","Yes, Breast rule M10 applies. This case is a single primary.
Follow the MP/H rules even though the ""pathologist specifically states the tumors are morphologically different"" so that situations like this are reported consistenty accross cancer registries, regions, and states for consistent national reporting.
","2015" "20150040","Surgery of Primary Site--Pleura: How is this field coded if the patient underwent an exploratory thoracotomy with partial decortication that excised some, but not all, of the pleural mesothelioma tumors? See Discussion.
","This patient underwent a ""partial decortication"" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a ""pleural peel"" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a ""partial decortication"" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?
","Read the operative report and the pathology report and assign the surgery code that best represents the extent of the surgery. In this case, code 30 seems most appropriate. Do not assign the surgery code based only on the name of the procedure; use all information available to chose the most representative code.
","2015" "20150039","Reportability--Skin: Is this reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code? The pathology report says, "" bx of 0.7 x 0.5 cm gray-pink papule on tan-pink skin of left inferior centra malar cheek revealed invasive SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, invading papillary dermis; LVI neg; ""findings are diag of SCC exhibiting the rare signet ring histologic subtype""; deep margin positive for tumor but peripheral margins clear;"".
","","SCC of skin, signet ring cell type, is not reportable to SEER. SCC's of skin classifiable to 8050-8084 are not reportable to SEER. See page 11 in the SEER manual, http://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/SPCSM_2015_maindoc.pdf
Signet ring is a rare histological variant of SCC and is coded to 8070/3 according to the WHO classification for skin tumors.
","2015" "20150038","Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) reportable, and if so, what is the histology code?
","","Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) is reportable because it is malignant. Assign 8005/3 to malignant PEComa.
We consulted an ICD-O-3 expert who explained that some PEComas such as angiomyolipoma and lymphangiomyomatosis have specific ICD-O codes and their malignant counterparts may be coded to 8860/3 and 9174/3 respectively. There are no separate ICD-O codes for other specific PEComas, e.g., clear cell “sugar” tumor of lung, clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the falciform ligament and some “unusual” clear cell tumors occurring in other organs—or for PEComa, NOS. These PEComas may therefore be coded to 8005 as clear cell tumors NOS; in other words as clear cell tumors that are not clear cell variants of carcinomas, sarcomas, or other specific tumor type.
Please note, PEComa is non-specific as to behavior. Unless the pathologist states that it is malignant, (as was the case for this question), the default code is 8005/1 (non-reportable).
","2015" "20150037","Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia reportable as lobular carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
","According to College of American Pathologists (CAP), lobular neoplasia is also known as lobular carcinoma in situ. In a previous SEER question 20041089, it was stated that they were not the same and should not be reported unless it was a Grade 3. I assume this has changed and we are to report lobular neoplasia as lobular carcinoma in situ, is this correct?
","According to the WHO classification of breast tumors, ""lobular neoplasia (LN) refers to the entire spectrum of atypical epithelial lesions originating in the terminal-duct lobular unit…"" Report the case when lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is stated. When LN or lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN) are described using the three-grade system, report LN/LIN grade 3. Only LN/LIN grade 3 is reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (See Intraepithelial neoplasia 3, ductal in ICD-O-3). WHO Classifications of Tumors are the preferred references for questions like this.
","2015" "20150036","Reportability/MP/H--Kidney: ""Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma."" Would this be coded 8310? See discussion.
","Multilocular clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a specifc histologic type listed in the CAP cancer protocol for kidney, but not in the ICD-O-3 and it is not on the list of specific types of renal cell carcinomas in Table 1 of the kidney equivalent terms and definitions in the MP/H manual. There is a malignant multilocular cystic nephroma 8959 in Table 1, but I can't tell if this the same histology as what is stated in this path report.
","Apply Kidney rule H5 and code the clear cell (8310/3) which is the specific type of renal cell. Multilocular is a variant of clear cell which is a variant of renal cell carcinoma. As of yet, no new ICD-O morphology code as been proposed for this specific histology. It will be addressed in the revised rules.
","2015" "20150035","Primary site--Anus/Anal Canal: What site do you code squamous cell carcinoma of the anal verge?
","","Assign C211 for anal verge. Anal verge is defined as the lower (distal) end of the anal canal, junction between the skin of the anal canal and the perianal skin, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2015/AppendixC/rectosigmoid/coding_guidelines.pdf
","2015" "20150034","MP/H/Histology/neuroendocrine : How should the following histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation be coded?
1. Bladder - Invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
2. Nasopharnyx - Undifferentiated nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
3. Ductal carcinoma in situ (with neuroendocrine features) cribriform and solid patterns
See discussion.
","We are starting to see more specific histologies with neuroendocrine differentiation. How are we to deal with these histologies and will this be addressed in the revised MP/H rules?
","The term neuroendocrine is often included with other histologies and usually means that neuroendocrine cells are present but not neuroendocrine tumor.
1. If the neuroendocrine cells are stated to be either small cell or large cell, code that histology; however, neuroendocrine, NOS mixed with urothelial does not have an applicable mixed code. Code histology to 8120.
2. Code histology to squamous cell carcinoma, nonkeratinizing, NOS (8072/3). The neuroendocrine component is not specified as either small cell or large cell.
3. Code to 8523/2 per MP/H Rule H6 as intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma present.
Note that while neuroendocrine differentiation can be identified, it seems to have no prognostic implications. We have consulted with our site specific Subject Matter Experts on how best to capture neuroendocrine, NOS when combined with other histologies. These instructions will be included in the revision of the MP/H rules including the wording of MP/H breast rule H6.
","2015" "20150033","MP/H/Histology--Lung: Would you code a lung primary of ""non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation"" to non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) or carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3)? See discussion.
","The pathology report states ""Right mediastinal mass: poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation."" This is the only histologic confirmation of this lung primary that is collected.
","Code carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3). MP/H rule H7 applies: code the higher ICD-O-3 code. There is non-small cell lung carcinoma (8046/3) and a carcinoma, NOS with neuroendocrine differentiation present (8574/3).
","2015" "20150031","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: This is an unusual case of multifocal colon cancer. The case is staged pT4b,N1b. Per our MP rules, this will be 4 separate primaries. Would this be an exception to the rules; if not now, possibly in future versions of the MP rules for colon cancer? See discussion.
","The path report reads: COMMENT: There is multifocal involvement throughout both bowel segments which combined represent a subtotal colectomy procedure. There are at least 11 tumors, all of which are histologically similar. Given the unusual gross appearance, a representative portion of the largest mass (hepatic flexure) was forwarded to _____ for flow cytometric evaluation. There is chronic active colitis in the background suggestive of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease, specifically ulcerative colitis. However, no dysplasia is seen in multiple random sections of grossly benign large bowel. ADDENDUM from expert gastroenterologist: The carcinomas are poorly differentiated without specific histologic features but are consistent with colon primaries. These findings are consistent with an MLH1-deficient carcinoma. Given the background chronic active colitis consistent with ulcerative colitis, this likely represents colitis-associated neoplasia which can be associated with multifocality.
","This unusual case of multifocal colon cancer is not an exception to the MP/H rules currently.
The current WHO classification for colon tumors mentions ulcerative colitis (UC) associated colorectal cancers and states they are often multiple. This will be discussed for the next version of the MP/H rules.
","2015" "20150030","First course treatment--Surgical rocedure of other sites: How is this field coded when the patient undergoes a lung wedge resection for a pulmonary nodule that was never definitively or was ambiguously stated to be a metastasis? See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.
The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, ""Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue."" This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?
","
Code 0 for Surgical Procedure of Other Site in this case. The Surgical Procedure of Other Site field is used to capture surgery to destroy or modify cancer tissue that is not captured in other surgery fields.
","2015" "20150029","First course treatment/Hormone Therapy--Lung: How is this field coded when the patient receives Prednisone for a metastatic lung adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.
","The SEER*Rx Database, Prednisone Primary Site indicates ""Prednisone is used to treat multiple sites and histologies."" The Remarks information states, ""Prednisone may be coded as treatment (hormonal) for all sites and histologies. It is most often used as part of a drug regimen."" While it is clear that Prednisone is coded as hormone therapy when administered as part of a drug regimen like CHOP, how is Prednisone coded when given outside of a drug regimen? Also, how is Prednisone coded for cancer-directed treatment of a metastatic lung primary? The NCI's PDQ does not list hormone therapy as cancer-directed treatment for a Stage IV lung adenocarcinoma.
In our specific case, Prednisone was started just after diagnosis, and before the completion of work-up proving distant metastasis. Often, Prednisone (or another hormone agent) is given as an ancillary treatment for the symptoms associated with the malignancy, and not as cancer-directed treatment.
","
Do not code Prednisone when it is given for symptoms. In most cases when Prednisone is given by iteself, not as part of a drug regimen, it does not affect the cancer and would not be coded as treatment.
","2015" "20150028","MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is ""Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description"". The second statement is ""Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis""
One of our pathology labs frequently will state ""keratinizing squamous cell"" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state ""squamous cell carcinoma"" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis?
","","Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis.
","2015" "20150027","Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion.
","Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the ""histologically sarcomatous"" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?
","Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection.
","2015" "20150026","First course treatment--Breast: When Lupron is given as cancer-directed treatment for metastatic breast cancer, should it be coded as Hormone Therapy or Other Therapy? See Discussion.
","Per the SEER*Rx Database, Lupron is coded as Other Therapy for breast cancer until such time that it receives FDA approval. However, SINQ 20021042 states Lupron should be coded as Hormone Therapy when given as cancer-directed therapy. These two sources contradict each other.
Information regarding hormone therapy for breast cancer in both the SEER*Rx Database and the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Topics website (http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/breast-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet) seem to indicate that the SINQ answer is the correct choice. The NCI Cancer Topics website states that Lupron acts to block ovarian function and is an example of an ovarian suppression drug that has been approved by the FDA. The SEER*Rx Database Remarks section states that a combination of letrozole and leuprolide (Lupron) ""is considered standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer and is sometimes used for treatment of early stage breast cancer."" But the Remarks go on to state that Lupron should be coded as Other Therapy until it receives FDA approval.
It is unclear how to code Lupron for breast cancers when the NCI website indicates that it is standard treatment while the SEER*Rx Database states both that it is and that it is not standard treatment.
","Code Lupron given for breast cancer in the ""Other"" treatment field using code 6 (other-unproven). Lupron is still not an approved hormone treatment for breast cancer and should not be coded in the hormone field.
","2015" "20150025","
Primary Site--Lung: What are the guidelines for coding primary site when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass? See discussion.
","At a recent meeting, one registry stated that they apply the following guidelines.
1) If the tumor is described as a hilar mass and there is no mention of LN involvement, Primary Site is coded to hilum (C340)
2) If there is LN involvement along with the mention of a hilar mass, then Primary Site is coded to C349
","Assign primary site code C340 when a lung tumor is described as a hilar mass.
","2015" "20150024","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure? See discussion.
","Operative report indicates a wire localized lumpectomy was performed. The pathology report includes a final diagnosis for two specimens as follows:
A) LEFT BREAST, EXCISION: INFILTRATING DUCTAL CARCINOMA
B) LEFT BREAST, NEW DEEP MARGIN, EXCISION: BENIGN BREAST TISSUES AND BENIGN FIBROFATTY SOFT TISSUES; NO EVIDENCE OF NEOPLASIA.
The definition for Breast surgery code 23 is ""Reexcision of the biopsy site for gross or microscopic residual disease"". There is no indication whether the re-excision has to be a separate procedure or can be during the same procedure as the excisional biopsy (lumpectomy). Some hospital registrars in our region believe code 22 is more appropriate.
","Revised Answer
Assign code 22 when a patient has a lumpectomy and an additional margin excision during the same procedure.
According to the CoC, ""Re-excision of the margins intraoperatively during same surgical event does not require additional resources; it is still 22. Subsequent re-excision of lumpectomy margins during separate surgical event requires additional resources: anesthesia, op room, and surgical staff; it qualifies for code 23.""
","2015" "20150023","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: When is 8341/3, papillary microcarcinoma coded? The code description in ICD-O-3 is followed by (C739), yet there are two SINQ answers that tell us specifically to not use this code for thyroid primaries. Even the first revision of ICD-O-3 still carries the (C739) as part of this code, which goes against SINQ 20110027 and 20081127.
","","Per the WHO Tumors of Endocrine Organs, for thyroid primaries/cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult (1cm or less in diameter) and was found incidentally. WHO does not recognize the code 8341 and classifies papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid as a variant of papillary thyroid and thereby should be coded to 8260. If the primary is thyroid and the pathology states papillary microcarcinoma or micropapillary carcinoma, code 8260 is correct. This information will be included in the upcoming revisions to the MP/H manual.
","2015" "20150022","Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion.
","Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: ""Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades."" They also state ""In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system"" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.
","Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade.
","2015" "20150021","MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is histology coded for an ""endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma with transformation to mucinous carcinoma""? See Discussion.
","Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSCG) is a rare type of low-grade sweat gland carcinoma. Some journal articles indicate that most patients with EMPSCG have coexisting mucinous carcinomas, suggesting that EMPSCG is a precursor to invasive mucinous carcinoma of the skin. Sweat gland carcinoma has its own histology code per the ICD-O-3 (8400/3); should an endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma also be coded as 8400/3? If so, would the correct histology for the skin case above be mucinous carcinoma (8480/3) per Rule H17? Conversely, if the terms ""mucin-producing"" are referring to mucin-producing carcinoma, and not referring to the sweat gland carcinoma, would the histology be coded 8481/3 (mucin-producing carcinoma)?
","Assign 8480/3.
There is no mixed ICD-O-3 code for EMPSCG. Both histologies are in the mucinous family: mucinous adenocarcinoma (8480/3) and sweat gland carcinoma (8400/3). Apply Other sites rule H17 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code (8480/3).
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) is a rare low-grade sweat gland carcinoma with a strong predilection to the eyelid region. It is histologically analogous to endocrine ductal carcinoma/solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and is characterized by a multinodular solid cystic mucinous tumor with immunoreactivity to neuroendocrine markers. Only 20 cases of this unusual tumor have been reported.
","2015" "20150020","Reportability/Primary site--Skin: Is a basal cell carcinoma of the lip ""ever"" reportable and if so, what would need to be documented or seen? See discussion.
","There is a 1988 case that hit the SEER edits for other reasons but not because of that site/histo combination (C000 and 8090/3); however, there is no text.
Per a Dataminer query, there are 42 cases in the state database with C000-C009 and 8090. On review, a few did have a mention of the word ""upper lip/mucosa"" in the PE text or OP findings (not path because a lot of these are removed in the MD office and we don't see the path report). Other times, there is no mention but the abstractor used the C00 codes instead of C44 so the cases get through.
SINQ #20031110 addresses this in relation to C000, Lip, NOS but we want to know if this answer meant you would never report a basal carcinoma lip case period (even if there is a mention of mucosa or any mention of mucosa in the path report). Are there any exceptions?
It seems if you would never report a basal lip carcinoma, then SEER would block those cases from being reported/submitted and the wording would be stronger in the SEER manual.
Right now the reportability only addresses if someone codes C44 but if someone decides to use C00 codes then it is allowed. Under Primary Site, there is even a listing under 12 for ""absence of any additional information"" and lists ""Colored / lipstick portion of upper lip"" as code C000.
","BCC of lip C00_ is rare and requires a statement that the tumor is on the vermilion border (rather than skin) to be coded C00_ and to be reported. Our expert pathologist consultant refers to an article in the Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50(3): 384-387.
","2015" "20150019","Reportability/Histology--Pancreas: Is well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (M8240/3) as stated on a pathology report reportable or can the clinical information be used as an adjunct to the path report, which further states the specific type of neuroendocrine tumor is an Insulinoma, therefore, NOT reportable (M8151/0)? See discussion.
","The diagnosis date is 2/24/14. The pathology report of the pancreas shows: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), low grade (WHO G1 of 3). Addendum: Ki-67 confirms low grade of pancreatic endocrine tumor (less than 2% Ki-67/MIB-1 index). Chromogranin confirms the endocrine nature of the tumor. The Pre and Post Op Diagnosis is pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor consistent with insulinoma. AJCC Stage as noted on path report: pT1, pNX, pM.
The physician states: The patient has a well-documented insulinoma. Biochemistries confirmed the disease and it is localized in the tail of the pancreas.
The issue with NETs is that pathology report reflects what is seen or what is quantified under the microscope; often, there is a specimen without the accompanying medical history and clinical signs. Many of these NETs are specified on the basis of the hormone, as usually measured in the blood, that is overproduced, something not seen microscopically. All of the islet cell tumors are NETs. The insulinoma in the example above is a well-differentiated NET that is causing insulin to be over-produced. Thus, the diagnoses are not discordant; insulinoma is a more specific NET.
","When the pathology diagnosis is a neuroendocrine tumor (/3) and the clinical diagnosis is an insulinoma (/0), report the case. Although ICD-O-3 classifies insulinoma as /0, the most recent WHO classification lists it as /3. The pathologist and physicians for this case are likely guided by the WHO classification and as a result, would view both the NET diagnosis and the insulinoma diagnosis as malignant. You could report this case as 8240/3 or 8151/3.
","2015" "20150018","First course of treatment--Immunotherapy: Should Rituxan be coded to immunotherapy? See discussion.
","Is the instruction under #4.b. on page 114 of the 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual incorrect? It says to code Rituxan as chemotherapy.
","Rituxan changed categories from chemotherapy to a biologic therapy/Immunotherapy agent effective with cases diagnosed January 1, 2013. See page 150 or page 164 in the 2015 SEER manual. The instruction in the 2014 SEER manual was incorrect regarding Rituxan.
","2015" "20150017","MP/H Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: What is the histology code for salivary duct carcinoma of parotid gland?
","","Code salivary duct carcinoma to invasive ductal carcinoma (8500/3). Salivary duct carcinoma is an aggressive adenocarcinoma which resembles high-grade breast ductal carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Head & Neck.
","2015" "20150016","Reportability--Stomach: Is a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the stomach reportable?
","","Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3.
","2015" "20150015","Primary Site--Testis: What is the prmary site for a 38 y/o male diagnosed with testicular cancer in a formerly undescended testis that was treated with orchiopexy at age 10-11? See discussion.
","Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis?
","Code the primary site C621 (descended testis). The primary site of this neoplasm is a scrotal (descended) testis. The history of orchiopexy can be noted in a text field, but does not change the primary site in this case.
","2015" "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.
","2015" "20150013","Surgery of Primary Site: What is the most extensive, invasive or definitive surgical procedure when the second surgical procedure performed has a lower surgery code? See discussion.
","
Examples
8/xx/13 TURBT with path specimen (27): Papillary Urothelial Carcinoma, HG 9/xx/13 Bladder fulgeration w/o path specimen (12)
5/xx/14 Segmental Mastectomy(24): Ductal carcinoma with <1mm marg 6/xx/14 Breast Re-excision (23): Residual ductal carcinoma 1.5mm, marg neg
","The code in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site should correspond to the most invasive, extensive, or definitive surgery when the patient has multiple surgical procedures of the primary site even if there is no residual tumor found in the pathologic specimen from the more extensive surgery. The timing of the procedures does not affect the code choice.
Assign code 27 for the first example. Assign code 24 for the second example.
","2015" "20150011","Surgery Primary Site--Breast: Please clarify how to code both simple mastectomy with tissue expander and AlloDerm reconstruction, and simple mastectomy with tissue expander (NOS). See discussion.
","There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.
1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?
2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?
3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?
","Do not code AlloDerm as either a tissue or implant reconstruction, it is a graft material that usually accompanies implant reconstruction. Placement of a tissue expander is an indication of planned reconstruction. Additional information is needed to determine whether the reconstruction involves tissue or implant.
1. A tissue expander is not always equivalent to Implant reconstruction
2. AlloDerm is not equivalent to tissue reconstruction
3. The combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander is not equivalent to combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction
","2015" "20150010","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: What is the correct histology code and MP/H Rule when a colectomy final diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with colloid and signet ring cell features? See discussion.
","The MP/H Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Colon indicate that type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, or with ___ differentiation are all equivalent in terms of coding histology. However, this is not indicated in the General Instructions (e.g., Histologic Type ICD-O-3 or General Instructions Histology Coding Rules). It also is not included as a Note under the Rules where one would expect to use these terms, for example, Rule H7. Is this an oversight or error in the Manual?
In this case, Rule H7 seems to be the first (and most appropriate) rule that applies to this mixed histology tumor. However, the specific histology terms that an invasive tumor may be identified as, are only listed under Rule H13. Can these same terms be used when applying rules for which they are not specifically noted? It would seem logical to use the equivalent histology terms to code a mixed histology tumor identified as a subtype or with features, etc., despite the fact that the specific terms are not listed under Rule H7.
","
Rule H7 applies. Assign code 8255. H13 does not apply as mucinous/colloid/signet are not NOS histologies. They are specific histologies. This will be addressed in the upcoming revisions to the rules.
","2015" "20150009","Multiple Primaries/Behavior--Lung: When a patient has an invasive lung primary, how do in situ tumors of the lung affect the determination of multiple primaries? See discussion.
","How many primaries should be reported when a 12/19/14 RUL lung wedge resection shows: 2.0 cm invasive adenocarcinoma (8140/3) and an additional RUL wedge resection during the same procedure shows: multifocal adenocarcinoma in situ (bronchioloalveolar carcinoma), non-mucinous type (8252/2) size: 1 mm – 2 mm; followed by a 2/12/15 left upper lobectomy also showing Adenocarcinoma, invasive at several foci, with a prominent bronchioloalveolar (in situ) component….tumor focality: multifocal (10 cm mass, 6 cm mass and numerous smaller foci)?
","Most often when the invasive tumor and the in situ component are in the same lung and are the same histology, rule M12 (example 3) applies and this is a single primary. If the first wedge resection included part of the tumor and the in situ was not separate from the tumor, it is a single primary. We suspect that the margins were positive on the first wedge specimen which prompted the second wedge resection where the in situ was found. In addition, terminology for lung malignancies is undergoing change: what was called BAC (invasive) is now called adenocarcinoma in situ.
","2015" "20150008","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is idiopathic hypereosinophilia reportable? Must the diagnosis include the word 'syndrome'?
","","Idiopathic hypereosinophilia is not reportable.
Hypereosinophilic syndrome is a different entity and is a synonym for chronic eosinophilic leukemia.
","2015" "20150007","MP/H Rules/Histology: What is the proper histology code -- mucin producing adenocarcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma for the following case? See discussion.
","4/10/13 Partial hepatectomy: well differentiated mucin producing adenoca involve right and left hepatic ducts, common hepatic duct & common bile duct. Invasion beyond wall of bile duct. CT Scan after 1st surgery shows residual neoplasm cannot be excluded
7/31/13 Left lateral segmentectomy: residual well differentiated cholangiiocarcinoma involving connective tissue surrounding major bile ducts. Per medical director, histolgically code to cholangiocarcinoma.
Primary site: Extra hepatic bile duct. Chemo (5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin) was started 5/1.
","
Code the histology as well differentiated mucin producing adenoca based on the 4/10/13 pathology report.
Code histology from the pathology report of the procedure which removed the most tumor tissue -- this is from the MP/H general instructions for coding histology. We are assuming that the partial hepatectomy removed the most tumor tissue in this case.
Per WHO, mucin producing adenoca is a variant of cholangiocarcioma.
","2015" "20150005","Reportability--Skin: Is this case not reportable if the intranasal polyp is covered with cutaneous epithelium (essentially skin) or, is it reportable as a primary intranasal basal cell carcinoma? I have found one article regarding primary intranasal basal cells, which are described as being ""very rare"". But, I am not sure whether, in those cases, cutaneous epithelium was found.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: (A) Nasal cavity, polyp, excision: Sinonasal inflammatory polyp with overlying cutaneous epithelium showing foci of superficial (noninvasive) basal cell carcinoma
","","Report this case as a basal cell carcinoma, noninvasive, of the nasal cavity, based on the information provided.
The polyp was removed from the nasal cavity (C300) which is a reportable site for basal cell carcinoma.
","2015" "20150003","Reportability/Behavior: Is the following reportable, and if so, what is the histology code? Final Diagnosis (on multiple conjunctive excisions): Conjunctiva - primary acquired melanosis with atypia (see note). Note: ""In all 3 specimens the process extends to the margins of excision. Complete extirpation is recommended (primary acquired melanosis with atypia is considered melanoma in situ).
","","Do not report primary acquired melanosis with atypia.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""There has been a lot of debate in the literature about the diagnostic criteria, terminology, and natural history of primary acquired melanosis [PAM]. Your case comes down squarely on the main issue, which is whether PAM with atypia should be regarded as melanoma in situ. In most studies it appears that PAMs with no atypia or mild atypia do not progress to melanoma, and only a small percentage of those with severe atypia do so."" ""PAM, even with atypia, is not melanoma in situ, and should not be reported.""
For further information, see this article for a review of a large number of patients: Shields, Jerry A, Shields, Carol L, et al. Primary Acquired Melanosis of the Conjunctiva: Experience with 311 Eyes. Trans. Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:61-72, Dec 2007.
","2015" "20150002","
Reportability--Bladder: Please explain the reportability of UroVysion for bladder cancer in the following circumstances.
1. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is negative. Is this case reportable with a diagnosis date the date of the UroVysion?
2. Patient has positive UroVysion test and follow up biopsy is positive for cancer. Is the diagnosis date of the date of the positive UroVysion or the date of the positive biopsy? Thank you.
","","Do not report a case based on UroVysion test results alone. Report a case when there is positive histology, a physician statement of malignancy, and/or the patient was treated for cancer.
1. Do not report the case.
2. Report the case based on the positive biopsy.
","2015" "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.
","2015" "20140090","MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: What is the correct histology code for an endometrial cancer described as ""Adenocarcinoma with areas of squamous differentiation?""
","","Assign 8570/3 to adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation of the endometrium. The most recent WHO classification does not list ""adenocarcinoma"" for tumors of the uterine corpus. WHO does state that ""endometroid carcinoma of the usual type is a glandular neoplasm..."" Further, WHO states ""Endometroid carcinoma typically displays a glandular or villoglandular architecture..."" Based on the WHO classification, the use of the term ""adenocarcinoma"" in this context can be interpreted as endometroid carcinoma.
","2014" "20140089","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 2014 diagnosis be abstracted as a new primary since it is not mantle cell lymphoma and all of the types listed in the differential diagnosis would be a new primary? See discussion.
","Mantle cell lymphoma diagnosed in 1997 which was treated with chemotherapy. Now in 2014 a 'relapse' of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They do a biopsy of the pericardium, which is called low grade B cell non Hodgkin lymphoma. See comment. The comment says histochemical stains are reviewed and findings are consistent with involvement by a CD5 positive low grade B cell lymphoma. Lack of cyclin D1 and SOX-11 positivity as well as negative IGH-CCND1 FISH analysis essentially rule out mantle cell lymphoma. The morphologic and immunophenotypic features of this disorder are not specific for any lymphoma subtype. The differential includes CLL, marginal zone lymphoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. If this is coded NHL, NOS (9591) it is the same primary as seq. 1 and would not be abstracted.
","This is the same primary, the mantle cell lymphoma.
Differential diagnoses cannot be used to assign histology. For the 2014 diagnosis, the only histology that can be assigned is 9591/3 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. (CLL, mantle cell lymphoma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma are all NHL's.)
Compare the 1997 diganosis of mantle cell lymphoma with the 2014 diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Start with Rule M1. The first rule that applies is Rule M15, which instructs you to use the multiple primaries calculator. Enter 9673/3 and then 9591/3 and then calculate. The result is same primary.
If at a later time one of the differential diagnoses is confirmed, apply the rules again.
","2014" "20140088","
Reportability--GIST: The 2014 SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual and the answer to SINQ 20100014 appear to conflict with respect to reporting GIST cases. The manual states (p.5, exception 1) that we are to accession the case if the patient is treated for cancer. However, the patient in Example #7 in the SINQ discussion is receiving chemotherapy, but is deemed not reportable. This is a problematic issue in our area, as pathologists prefer using the NCCN “Risk Stratification of Primary GIST by Mitotic Index, Size and Site” table rather than stating whether the tumor is benign or malignant. Although they tell us that moderate or high risk should receive treatment, they will not characterize them as malignant.
","","Determining reportability for GIST is problematic because of the reluctance of pathologists to use the term ""malignant"" for GIST cases. If you can document the pathologist's terminology and case characteristics (e.g. treatment) that correspond to ""malignant"" for your registry as part of the registry's policies and procedures, you can report those cases as malignant.
The exception cited above in the SEER manual pertains to a clinical diagnosis with a negative pathology report. Normally, the negative pathology report would override the clinical diagnosis and the case would not be reportable. However, if the patient is treated for a malignancy in spite of the negative pathology, report the case.
","2014" "20140087","
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ampulla of vater: Is this a new primary? Patient has intramucosal adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma of the ampula of vater in Sept. of 2011. In May of 2012, patient has another ampullary adenoma with intraepithelial carcinoma (pTis) and an area suspicious for invasion. This is coded 8263/3.
Rule M14, Multiple in situ and/or malignant polyps are a single primary, precedes rule M15, An invasive tumor following an in situ tumor more than 60 days after diagnosis is a multiple primary, per the MP rules for 'Other sites',
","","Rule M14 applies. Abstract this case as a single primary.
","2014" "20140086","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: Does rule M7 apply here (A frank malignant or in situ adenocarcinoma and an in situ or malignant tumor in a polyp are a single primary)? Can the frank malignant adenocarcinoma be any specific type of adenocarcinoma for this rule to apply?
A patient has 2 synchronous tumors in the ascending colon. The first is grade 3 adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation and focal mucinous features (8255/3). The second is grade 2-3 adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma (8263/3).
","","M7 applies to this case. The frank adenocarcinoma can be a specific type of adenocarcinoma.
","2014" "20140084","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the 1995 diagnosis be changed to plasmacytoma? A 1995 case on the central registry database indicates that MRI and bone surveys revealed a pubic ramus lesion that was biopsied. There are no other bone lesions. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. The pathologist's diagnosis at that time was ""Plasma Cell Myeloma"". In 2013 there was a positive bone marrow biopsy and a diagnosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma. In 2013, a history of ""sequential plasmacytomas since 1995"" was mentioned. Since the 1995 diagnosis was only a solitary bone lesion with no marrow involvement, it certainly seems to fit a diagnosis of plasmacytoma better than myeloma.
","","Do not change the 1995 diagnosis in this case. It is best to code the histology according to information from the time of the diagnosis. Using information obtained many years later is less reliable.
","2014" "20140083","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be reported when a complete thyroidectomy specimen shows two tumors: 1.8 cm papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and a 0.4 cm papillary thyroid carcinoma (8260/3)? See discussion.
","Is papillary thyroid carcinoma an NOS histology qualifying for rule M16, thus leading to a single primary, or would M17 apply (multiple primaries) because the histology codes are different at the second digit (8260 and 8344)? While rule M16 doesn't include papillary thyroid carcinoma in the listed histologies, it seems like it may be an NOS histology for the thyroid. In addition, code 8260/3 is listed as NOS in the ICD-O-3.
","Apply rule M16 and abstract a single primary. These two thyroid tumors, one papillary carcinoma with tall cell features (8344/3) and one papillary thyroid carcinoma, fit the criteria for rule M16, although not explicity listed there. We will clarify this in the next version of the rules.
","2014" "20140082","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How should histology be coded for a testicular teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.
","11/8/2013 Rt orchiectomy: teratoma with somatic type malignancy (adenocarcinoma).
5/2/2014 Abdominal mass excision: metastatic teratoma involving matted lymph nodes. Patient age at diagnosis is 31.
Per web search, a teratoma with somatic type malignancy is a rare type of tumor. Should the histology be coded to 8140/3? This seems to conflict with SINQ 20120085, which indicates a testicular mature teratoma in an adult is malignant, and in this example, it was also the portion of tumor that metastasized.
","Assign code 9084/3, listed in ICDO as teratoma with malignant transformation.
Our expert pathologist consultant states that this is a very rare situation. The non-germ cell components are believed to arise out of the teratoma portions, and are seen in only of few percent of teratomas. They are given the designation ""teratoma with somatic type malignancies"" (WHO).
","2014" "20140081","Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is primary erythrocytosis equivalent to primary polycythemia and thus reportable? See discussion.
","Per the Heme Manual, Appendix F - Non-Reportable list for Heme Diseases, under Polycythemia, the Comment states that polycythemia is also known as erythrocytosis. Because polycythemia is equivalent to erythrocytosis, can we assume that ""primary erythrocytosis"" is equivalent to ""primary polycythemia"" and thus reportable as 9950/3 per the Heme DB? Or is the case nonreportable because the exact term of ""primary erythrocytosis"" is not listed as an alternate name for polycythemia vera, only ""primary polycythemia"" is listed?
","Primary erythrocytosis is not equivalent to primary polycythemia and is not reportable. This will be clarified in a future revision. Thank you for point it out to us.
","2014" "20140080","Behavior--Breast: Is behavior for encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast coded as noninvasive or invasive?
","","The pathologist has the final say on behavior. Code behavior based on the pathologist's final diagnosis. See Rule F in ICD-O-3.
According the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, encapsulated papillary carcinoma of the breast is in situ, /2. Encapsulated papillary carcinoma with invasion is assigned /3. WHO describes ""frank invasive carcinoma"" for this histology as ""neoplastic epithelial elements infiltrate beyond the fibrous capsule of encapsulated papillary carcinomas."" WHO cautions that true infiltration should be ""differentiated from entrapment of neoplastic epithelial cells in the fibrous capsule and from epithelial displacement into the biopsy site, which is frequently encountered following needle-core procedures of papillary lesions.""
","2014" "20140079","Laterality: Why is a code 5 for laterality midline only allowed for certain sites of brain and skin? I have a nasal cavity tumor and the path report specifically says ""Tumor laterality: midline"". What is the correct laterality code here?
","","Assign laterality code 9 for midline nasal cavity tumor. We will investigate this issue further.
","2014" "20140078","Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion.
","Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, ""received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a ""TURBT"" with no further description of the procedure.
","Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen.
","2014" "20140077","MP/H Rules/Histology/Multiple primaries--GE junction: How is histology coded for a goblet cell carcinoma in the GE junction? See discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with GE junction signet ring adenocarcinoma (8490/3) in 5/2012, treated with radiation. GE junction biopsy on 9/20/2012 showed residual signet ring carcinoma. Subsequent biopsies on 7/8/2013 showed GE junction biopsy of invasive adenocarcinoma, signet ring cell type along with “Esophagus, distal and GE junction biopsies” (site not further clarified in available documentation) with Goblet cell carcinoma. The histology code for the goblet cell carcinoma is needed to determine the number of primaries.
","According to our expert pathologist consultant, goblet cell is a descriptive term and not a specific histology in this context. There is no ICD-O-3 code for it. The ""goblet cell carcinoma"" in this case is not a new primary.
Goblet cell is used to describe some cells containing mucin. In addition to individual tumor cells containing mucin which compresses the nucleus to give the appearance of signet rings, the mucin is present in columnar cells with the nuclei at one end -- this latter is a pattern often seen when glandular structures are formed by the tumor cells. It is also often intermixed with the signet ring cells in the surrounding stroma.
","2014" "20140074","Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: What procedure code would be used for NeuroBlate Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy? This procedure was used for a Glioblastoma of the brain.
","","If a pathologic specimen is not taken during this procedure, code in the surgery field using code 10 (Local tumor destruction, NOS). If specimen is sent to pathology, code 90, surgery, NOS. We will request this procedure be included in future treatment field coding documentation.
Our research notes that this procedure, also known as LITT (Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy), is a surgical treatment. Lasers transmit heat to coagulate or destroy the brain tumors from the inside out.
","2014" "20140072","Reportability--Head & Neck: Would this be reportable and if so what histology would be coded? Soft tissue mass left cheek excision reveals Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma Non-Invasive with focal vascular invasion. Margins clear.
","","Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (Ca-ex-PA) is reportable. Assign 8941/3. The WHO classification of head and neck tumors defines Ca-ex-PA as an epithelial malignancy arising in a benign pleomorphic adenoma. Most of these originate in the parotid gland but can also arise in other salivary glands.
","2014" "20140071","Reportability--Lung: One of our facilities has a case they are not really sure how to report.
This patient came in for a double lung transplant due to COPD which occurred on 1/27/14. At time of transplant, the team found out the donor hospital had identified a small nodule in the right lower lobe donor lung, which they biopsied and deemed negative. However, the slides were reviewed and felt to represent adenocarcinoma. The team performed a right lower lobe lobectomy of the donor lung before transplanting into the patient.
So, we are not really sure how to handle this case. The adenocarcinoma actually belongs to the donor patient from another hospital, however, they actually didn’t identify it at that facility as their pathology was negative for a malignancy.
","","This very interesting case is not reportable to either facility. Since the right lower lobe nodule was resected prior to transplantation, the case does not belong to your patient. Ideally, the cancer should be assigned to the donor; however, donor information is confidential.
","2014" "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).""
","2014" "20140069","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How would you code this histology: Renal cell carcinoma, clear and eosinophilic cell type?
","","Kidney rule H5 applies, code the more specific histology which is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (8310/3). Per the WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, clear cell renal cell carcinoma contains both clear and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Eosinophilic is not a type or variant of renal cell carcinoma.
","2014" "20140068","Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: What is the correct surgery code to assign for dilation and curettage (D&C) for an in-situ endometrium (C541) primary? The code to use for the cervix uteri (C530-C539) is specified, but not for the corpus uteri (C540-C549).
","","Assign code 20 for endometrial D&C for in situ cancer of endometrium.
","2014" "20140067","MP/H/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: What is the histology code for renal cell carcinoma translocation type?
","","Code renal cell carcinoma translocation type as renal cell carcinoma, NOS, 8312. While WHO recognizes renal cell carcinomas with associated translocations, there is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant of renal cell carcinoma.
","2014" "20140066","First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor?
","","Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants.
","2014" "20140065","Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.
","The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.
Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?
","Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.
","2014" "20140064","Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion.
","Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for ""adult""? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual.
","For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples.
","2014" "20140063","MP/H Rules--Histology: How is histology coded when a metastatic site is biopsy positive for adenocarcinoma, but the physician clinically states this is cholangiocarcinoma? See discussion.
","The patient underwent a PTA biopsy of a lytic mass showing metastatic adenocarcinoma. Imaging revealed a large hepatic mass consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. The physician's impression on a physical exam note was the PTA biopsy was most consistent with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, the PTA pathology report was reviewed at this facility and the final diagnosis was not stated to be cholangiocarcinoma, only adenocarcinoma, NOS.
The priority order for coding histology rules in the MP/H Manual indicates pathology has priority over documentation in the medical record. Following the rules in the MP/H Manual, the histology would be coded as 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. While this may be technically correct, it seems that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is often diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy, but further stated to be cholangiocarcinoma by the physician once other primary sites have been excluded. By applying the rules in the MP/H Manual, cases that seem better characterized as cholangiocarcinomas are being collected as adenocarcinoma, NOS. Should the histology be adenocarcinoma [8140/3] or cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3] for these cases?
","When the physician has reviewed all of the pertinent information, and the physician's opinion is documented stating that the histology is cholangiocarcinoma, code cholangiocarcinoma.
A pathology report from a primary site has the highest priority for coding histology; however, there is no such pathology report in this case. We will review the histology coding instructions and add clarification in the next version.
","2014" "20140062","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Does lung MP/H Rule M6 apply to synchronous tumors only, metachronous tumors only, or both? See discussion.
","How many primaries should be reported when a patient has a history of RLL adenocarcinoma diagnosed on 10/8/2009 followed by diagnoses of LUL adenocarcinoma on 10/5/2012 and a RUL adenocarcinoma on 3/26/2014?
We applied Rule M6 to the 10/5/2012 diagnosis of LUL adenocarcinoma and reported an additional primary. However, we are unsure how to apply the MP/H rules for the 3/26/2014 RUL adenocarcinoma.
Should we apply Rule M8 because the RUL adenocarcinoma was diagnosed more than 3 years after the original RLL adenocarcinoma and then apply M6 because the RUL and LUL indicate a single tumor in each lung (resulting in a third primary); or does Rule M12 apply because there has been more than a single tumor in each lung (no new primary)?
","Assuming each of the three diagnoses is a single tumor and there are no other tumors in either lung, abstract two primaries: 1 in the RLL diagnosed on 10/8/2009 and 1 in the LUL diagnosed on 10/5/2012. Do not abstract the 3/26/2014 diagnosis as a new primary.
Rule M6 applies to the 2009 and 2012 diagnoses. Rule M12 applies to the 2012 and 2014 diagnoses. Do not compare the 2014 diagnosis to the 2009 diagnosis. Always compare the latest diagnosis to the most recent previous diagnosis in cases like this.
","2014" "20140061","Primary Site/In Situ: How is primary site coded for an in situ carcinoma arising in a mucinous cystadenoma with ovarian stroma (focal) located in the right lobe of the liver? See discussion.
","The SEER Coding and Staging Manual instructs one to code the primary site to the location where the tumor originated, in this case the liver. However, there is no CS Extension code for in situ tumors found in the CS Manual Liver Schema.
","Based on the information provided, the primary site is liver. Submit the CS question to the CoC CAnswer Forum, http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/content.php
","2014" "20140060","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this lung tumor? FINAL PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS: CT-guided Rotex and Franseen needle biopsies: Positive for malignancy, consistent with adenocarcinoma. Comment: the adenocarcinoma present also shows rare CD56 staining which indicates a neuroendocrine component.
Is this a mixed histology? 8045/3? 8244/3?
","","Assign histology code 8140/3, adenocarcinoma, based on the final diagnosis. The neuroendocrine component in this case is not another histology, nor is it a more specific adenocarcinoma. ""Component"" is not one of the words that we use to indicate a more specific histology.
","2014" "20140059","Primary site--Bladder: What is the primary site for bladder tumor biopsy: invasive adenocarcinoma, enteric type favor urachal origin, stage III
","","Based on the information provided, code the primary site to urachus (C677). Primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder accounts for less than 1% of all bladder malignancies. Of these, 20–39% are urachal in origin.
","2014" "20140058","Reportability--Pancreas: Is a solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas reportable?
","","Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is reportable. According to the WHO classification, it is a ""low-grade malignant neoplasm…[which] frequently undergoes hemorrhagic-cystic degeneration and occurs predominantly in young women.""
Assign topography code C25 with the appropriate 4th digit. Code the histology as 8452/3.
","2014" "20140057","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for a diagnosis of urothelial plasmacytoma carcinoma of the bladder per pathology report?
","","Assign code 8120/3, urothelial carcinoma, NOS, to urothelial plasmacytoma carcinoma of the bladder. The WHO classification describes plasmacytoid variants of urothelial carcinoma. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for these variants; however, and 8120/3 must be used.
","2014" "20140056","MP/H--Bladder: Are 8130 and rule H12 correct for this case? Bladder with papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation.
","","Rule H8 applies, code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is papillary transitional cell carcinoma, 8130.
Based on the information provided, there is a single bladder tumor, papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation. Urinary sites rule H12 does not apply because this is a single tumor, not multiple tumors. In the single tumor H rules, H3 does not apply as this rule does not include papillary transitional cell carcinoma. Rule H4 is papillary carcinoma or papillary transitional cell carcinoma and refers you to Table 1. Table 1 does not list papillary urothelial carcinoma with squamous cell differentiation because there is no ICD-O-3 code for this histology. Table 1 does list transitional cell carcinoma with squamous differentiation as code 8120, however, the papillary transitional cell carcinoma is the higher code, 8130. We will review this situation for the next version of the rules.
","2014" "20140055","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this a reportable case and if so what codes would be used for the primary site and histology?
Lymph node flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy revealed involvement by a low-grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Medical oncologist states monoclonal gammopathy, question marginal zone B cell lymphoma versus lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder.
","","Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is not reportable, nor is monoclonal gammopathy. There is no definitive diagnosis for marginal zone or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. The terminology used includes ""question"" and ""versus"" which are not acceptable ambiguous terms for reportability. If possible, follow up with the physician regarding the definitive diagnosis.
","2014" "20140054","MP/H/Multiple primaries--Stomach: How should I report this case? I reviwed both the MP/H and the Heme Rules and could not determine whether or not this case is multiple primaries in a single site but two histologies and therefore needing two separate abstracts.
Path Diagnosis: Gastric Mass Biopsy: 1) Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma. 2) Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT Lymphoma). 3) Mild Intestinal Metaplasia and Marked Fundic Gland Atrophy, Negative for H Pylori. Comments: Biopsy shows presence of both signet ring carcinoma and MALT Lymphoma.
","","Report two primaries: MALT lymphoma and signet ring carcinoma. Use the 2007 MP/H rules and the Heme rules for this case.
This case could be an example of a ""collision tumor"" - two separate tumors that grow together into one mass. Collision tumors are a rare exception to rule M2 in the MP/H rules.
","2014" "20140053","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this abstracted as one primary or two?
5/2/13 Bone Marrow biopsy: myelodysplastic syndrome with approaching to acute myeloid leukemia with del 5q and 7q deletions. FISH: deletion of chromosome 5q and deletion of chromosome 7q detected.
I checked the Heme DB manual and there is no term ""With approaching to"". I checked the Multiple Primary calculator and it says new primary. My interpretation is that the myelodysplastic syndrome is in the process of transforming to acute myeloid leukemia.
","","Abstract a single primary, myelodysplastic syndrome with del 5q and 7q deletions (9986/3). This neoplasm can transform to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, ""with approaching to"" cannot be used to report this AML.
","2014" "20140051","Reportability/Histology: Is this reporatable? If so, what is the correct histology?
2012 duodenal nodule biopsy, pathology positive for well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm.
","","Report this case as 8240/3. In this context, well differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm seems to be a synonym for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (carcinoid). According to the WHO classification, ""Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the duodenum comprise NETs...""
","2014" "20140050","MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: What would be the morphology code for a low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma of the left distal forearm? I tried several different combinations but the closest I could come up with is myosarcoma.
","","Assign code 8825/3. Apply the ICD-O-3 Matrix Concept, Rule F, page 29 of the hardcover ICD-O-3. The WHO Classification of Soft tissue and Bone, page 85, lists low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma, also called myofibrosarcoma, 8825/3.
","2014" "20140049","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Tuberculum sellae meningioma reportable? Is it same as sphenoidale meningioma?
Path: Brain tuberculum tumor resection: Meningioma, WHO grade I.
","","Revised answer based on ST rules
Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone.
","2014" "20140048","MP/H Rules/Histology--Sarcoma: Is 8811/3 the correct code for myxofibrosarcoma (myxoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma) high-grade (grade 3/3)?
","","8811/3 is the correct code for myxofibrosarcoma. See Rule J on page 33 in ICD-O-3. Fibromyxosarcoma is equivalent to myxofibrosarcoma.
","2014" "20140047","MP/H/Multiple primaries--Urinary: In Aug 2008 Patient was diagnosed with Noninvasive Bladder Cancer. In Oct 2013 Patient was diagnosed with Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Right Ureter involving lamina propria, Noninvasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma Left Ureter and Invasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma of Prostatic Urethra. Is this a new primary and what is the primary site?
","","Rule M7 applies when comparing the 2008 diagnosis to the 2013 diagnosis: multiple primaries.
Rule M8 applies to the tumors identified in 2013: single primary.
Based on the information provided, code the primary site for 2013 to C689 because there is no indication of the site of origin among the involved sites.
","2014" "20140046","MP/H/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: Is this one primary with a C689 primary code and morphology 8130/3? Or is this 2 primaries: 1. C679 8130/3 and 2.C680 8120/2. See discussion.
","Urinary: Transitional Cell Carcinoma and open prostatectomy: Path from Bladder: Papillary and solid transitional cell carcinoma of bladder - grade II and III Stage A.
Path from prostatectomy: The prostatic tissue samples shows areas of urothelia carcinoma in situ - related to the tumor present in the bladder.
Conclusion: Prostatectomy showing foci of transitional cell carcinoma in situ of prostatic urethra.
","Abstract a single primary, C679 8130/3. Rules M2 and H4 apply. Transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma in the prostatic urethra is likely an extension from the known bladder TCC in this case, not a separate primary. See prostatic urethra on page 63 in the Urinary Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
","2014" "20140040","Reportability/Primary Site--Lip: Is a right lower lip (NOS) squamous cell carcinoma reportable when the microscopic description states the tumor arises from the epidermis and extends through the dermis? See discussion.
","We are having difficulty determining whether the primary site is lip, NOS (C009) or skin of lip (C440). Usually we look for a statement of “skin” or “mucosa” in the microscopic description if the specimen label is only lip, NOS as instructed by the previous SINQ 20051049. Is a statement of ""epidermis"" or ""dermis"" in the microscopic description enough to indicate carcinoma is arising in the skin of the lip (C440) and thus not reportable?
","This case is interpreted as skin of lip and not reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, the pathologist in this case ""is specifically saying ""epidermis"" and ""dermis"" and I would have to think it is skin, and thus not reportable.""
","2014" "20140039","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a statement of ""JAK-2 positive polycythemia"" reportable? See discussion.
","Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. However, there is a statement in the Heme Manual Glossary for JAK2 that states, ""When JAK2 is positive, the MPN is definitely reportable."" Does a positive JAK 2 always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder or must there also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia)?
","A positive JAK 2 does not always mean there is a reportable myeloproliferative disorder. There must also be an associated statement of a reportable neoplasm (e.g., myeloproliferative disorder, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia). The glossary entry will be clarified.
","2014" "20140038","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries are there and which MP rules apply in this scenario? See discussion.
","Patient has 2 tumors in the left ureter; one is transitional cell (8120) and one is papillary transitional cell (8130). Rule M6 says BLADDER tumors with any combination of the following histologies ... are a single primary. But this is not a bladder case. Rule M8 says urothelial tumors in 2 or more of the following sites are a single primary... but this is not in 2 or more sites. Rule M9 then says histologies different at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd digit are separate primaries. That makes this 2 primaries, but I do not think this should be 2 primaries.
","Rule M9 applies. Abstract 2 primaries.
We will evaluate this scenario for the next version of the multiple primary rules.
","2014" "20140036","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Is duct carcinoma of the prostate the same as an adeno/acinar carcinoma of the prostate? Specifically, does rule M3 apply when there is an adenocarcinoma of the prostate followed by a duct carcinoma of the prostate or a duct carcinoma followed by adenocarcinoma?
","","Rule M3 does not apply to adenocarcinoma followed by duct carcinoma of the prostate or vice versa. Rule M3 pertains to cases of adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma. These two terms, adenocarcinoma and acinar carcinoma, are equivalent for the purpose of applying the MP/H rules to prostate cases. See page 77 of the Other Sites Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
","2014" "20140035","
Reportability/MP/H Rules/Histology: Is this kidney tumor diagnosis reportable? If so, what is the correct histology? See discussion.
","Left radical nephrectomy: Tumor histologic type: Renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (see Note). Note: The a clear cell papillary renal cell tumor and a renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (""""RAT"""") (reval cell carcinoma with angioleiomyoma-like stroma). Although some authors consider RAT tumors to represent a pattern of clear cell papillary RCC we believe that this represents a dstinct entity. The combined findings ...confirm the diagnosis of renal angiomyoadenomatous (RAT) tumor. These tumors are also known as renal cell carcinoma within angioleiomyoma-like stroma. To date none of these tumors have developed metastases. Given the small number of reported cases we would consider these to have at worst a low malignant potential.
","According to our expert pathologist adviser, renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (""RAT"") is not reportable. He states ""l would be reluctant to consider the entity malignant. The authors of the papers describing it do not seem ready to call it malignant either. I agree with calling it LMP, or in this case uncertain malignant potential.""
","2014" "20140034","Reportability--Ovary: Can you clarify when widely metastatic borderline histologies of the ovary and various other sites are reportable? See discussion.
","SINQ 20130176 states that an adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary with metastases is malignant. However, SINQ 20091087 states that a borderline tumor of the appendix with metastasis is not reportable.
The first statement of 20130176 “though granulosa cell tumor is coded 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal or lymph node metastases indicate the tumor is malignant and coded as /3” does not coincide with the second statement of “the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, even though there may be peritoneal implants or metastatic disease in the lymph nodes”. If the ovarian metastases do make this a reportable malignancy, can this line of thinking be used to determine reportability for borderline histologies for other sites such as the appendix?
","The case in 20130176 is adult granulosa cell tumor. The answer points out an important difference in the way ""metastases"" from this histology should be interpreted versus low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Metastases from adult granulosa cell tumor of the ovary indicates a malignant primary. So-called metastases from a LMP epithelial tumor do not indicate a malignant primary when the metastatic deposits are also LMP/borderline in behavior.
Do not apply instructions for ovarian cases to other primary sites including appendix.
","2014" "20140033","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion.
","SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.”
","Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words ""highly suspicious"" because neither diagnosis is definitive (""insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer"" and ""not definitively diagnostic.""). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally ""not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma."" That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply.
","2014" "20140032","Histology--Breast: Please confirm the morphology code for a diagnosis of ""encapsulated papillary carcinoma"" of the breast. Several articles on the internet lead me to believe it is the same as an intracystic carcinoma, code 8504/2 (our case shows no evidence of invasion).
","","You are correct in coding 8504/2 for this case. Per the 4th Edition WHO Tumors of the Breast, encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) of the breast is synonymous with intracystic or encysted papillary carcinoma. It is a variant of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
","2014" "20140031","MP/H Rules: Regarding rules for Renal Pelvis, ureters, bladder & urethra - Please clarify Rule M8. Rule M8 references Table 1, but table 1 is a table of histologies not primary sites, Rule M8 also seems to contradict Table 2 and Rule M10. Does it matter where the first primary is, ie bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis?
","","Table 2 does not apply to diagnoses in 2007 and later. A watermark over (or near) Table 2 states ""Do not use for cases diagnosed on or after 2007."" Table 2 lists previous SEER site groupings for cases prior to 2007.
The MP/H rules are in hierarchical order. Use the first rule that applies. When Rule M8 applies, there is no need to check Rule M10. Rule M8 is for the urinary sites listed and derives single primary. Rule M10 is for all sites, except the sites listed in Rule M8, and derives multiple primaries.
It does not matter where the first primary is, i.e. bladder then urethra or bladder then renal pelvis. If there are two or more tumors in two or more of these four sites listed in Rule M8 with histologies listed on Table 1, abstract as a single primary.
","2014" "20140030","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is this a single primary or multiple primaries? Transurethral resection of the bladder identifies two bladder tumors. Pathology states one is high grade papillary carcinoma (8130/3) and the other is lymphoepithelioma-like urothelial carcinoma (8082/3). Lymphoepithelioma-like is listed as a urothelial type in Table 1 but rule M6 does not include it in the list of histologies and we are not told to refer to Table 1. M8 refers to Table 1 but does not include multiple bladder tumors (C67_). Specify which rule would apply and why.
","","Rule M9 applies to this case. Abstract two primaries. M6 does not apply to this case because code 8082 is not one of the applicable histology codes for M6. This situation will be reviewed as we prepare the next version of the rules.
","2014" "20140029","MP/H Rules/Histology-Urinary: 1) What is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code for conventional renal cell carcinoma? Is this clear cell carcinoma or does conventional refer to the general diagnosis?
2) If a patient was diagnosed with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in May 2011 and returns in February 2013 with invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, what is the correct ICD-O-3 morphology code?
","","1) Clear cell renal carcinoma, code 8310, is often called conventional renal cell carcinoma. It is specific compared to renal cell carcinoma, NOS, code 8312, a general morphology term for the majority of kidney cancers. See kidney rules H5 and H12 and Table 1 on page 57 of the Kidney Terms and Definitions, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/mphrules_definitions.pdf
2) Do not change the ICD-O-3 code assigned for the 2011 diagnosis. As you know, the 2013 diagnosis is not a new primary per rule M6.
","2014" "20140027","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology for the following bladder case and how do you determine? See discussion.
","8/1/10 CYSTOSCOPY -- MULTIPLE BLADDER TUMORS INVOLVING POSTERIOR WALL, DOME & BLADDER NECK AREA. LARGEST WOULD BE MORE THAN 5 CM IN SIZE. 8/17/10 path -- BLADDER TUMORS:PAPILLARY TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA OF urinary bladder, GRADE III. ONE FRAGMENT OF TISSUE SHOWS NECROTIC CHANGE WITH APPARENT TRANSFORMATION TO A HIGH GRADE SARCOMATOID VARIANT W ITH EXTENSIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION & FOCAL AREA SUGGESTIVE OF ANGIOLYMPHATIC INVASION NOTED. MAJORITY OF TUMOR APPEARS CONFINED TO MUCOSAL SURFACE W ITH NO OTHER AREAS OF DEFINITIVE SUBMUCOSAL INVASION FOUND.
","Code 8122/3 (UC/TCC, Sarcomatoid). Rule H5 and Table 1 apply.
This is based on the information provided: Transitional Cell Carcinoma with sarcomatoid variant, and Table 1 in Terms and Definitions for ""Ureter/Renal Pelvis/Bladder"".
","2014" "20140026","Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246?
","","Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine ""carcinoma"" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine ""tumor"" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma.
","2014" "20140025","Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't ""T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia"" (9831/3) coded as ""5 T-cell"" instead of ""9"" as specified in the Heme database? My path department did not specify any type of grade, but since ""T-cell"" is part of the name, wouldn't you code it to ""5""?
","","Assign code 5 when the diagnosis on the pathology report specifies ""T-cell granular lymphocytic leukemia."" The Heme DB grade instruction states ""Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."" In this case, T-cell was specified - code it. The code for T-cell (5) was not automatically assigned in the Heme DB because of the alternate names for this neoplasm. Some of these include NK-cell. Assign code 8 for alternate names with NK.
The alternate names are: Chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK cells, Chronic NK-cell lymphocytosis, Chronic NK-large granular lymphocyte (LGL) lymphoproliferative disorder, CLPD-NK, Indolent large granular NK-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, NK-cell lineage granular lymphocyte proliferative disorder, NK-cell LGL lymphocytosis
","2014" "20140024","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder:What is the correct histology code for the following bladder histology? High grade urothelial cancer with extensive neuroendocrine differentiation.
","","Code neuroendocrine carcinoma, 8246/3. Note 2 under Rule H7 applies.
We are reviewing mixed histologies for the next version of the rules.
","2014" "20140022","MP/H Rules/Kidney, renal pelvis--How many primaries are there for this case? Should we stop at rule M8 making this all one primary (C689) even though there were right and left renal pelvis tumors? Rule M3, which contains laterality, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor. See discussion.
","Kidney: originally diagnosed 12/21/2011 with right renal pelvis high grade papillary urothelial cancer. Status post right nephrectomy. Then on 01/10/2013 diagnosed with low grade papillary urothelial cancer of the bladder. 01/21/2013 diagnosed with left renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma iIn situ. Path report stated this may represent a hgh grade papillary urothelial cancer – unable to confirm due to specimen size. On 01/24/2013 left periaortic lymph node biopsy revealed poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with prior diagnosed right renal pelvis high grade urothelial cancer. Neither the bladder nor the left renal pelvis tumor was compared to the previous right renal pelvis tumor. Also has bone mets.
","Abstract this case as a single primary.
First, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 bladder tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. Next, apply the MP/H rules to compare the 2013 in situ renal pelvis tumor to the 2011 renal pelvis tumor. Rule M8 applies, this is a single primary. As you correctly pointed out, Rule M3 for bilateral renal pelvis tumors, does not apply because there is also a bladder tumor in this case.
","2014" "20140021","Reportability--Breast: Is an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung reportable?","","Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast with metastasis to the lung is reportable. Metastasis to the lung from the breast tumor indicates that the breast tumor is malignant. All malignant neoplasms are reportable.","2014" "20140020","Reportability--Breast: Is ADH/DCIS reportable?
Final Dx for left Breast biopsy: Atypical epithelial proliferation (ADH/DCIS). Comment: Sections show small focus of atypical epithelial proliferation with features of atypical duct hyperplasia/low grade duct carcinoma in-situ.
","","ADH/DCIS is reportable. DCIS (duct carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When DCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case.","2014" "20140019","Reportability--Breast: Is this reportable as 8520/2?
Final Diagnosis: Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia (ALH/LCIS). We are seeing this diagnosis quite often.
","","ALH/LCIS is reportable. LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ) is a reportable neoplasm. When LCIS is stated as the final diagnosis, report the case.","2014" "20140017","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an ""axillary mass"" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise?
","","Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 5 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology.
Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time.
Using the multiple primaries calculator in this situation will give you two primaries, which is the wrong answer. Use the rules before using the calculator.
To get to the manual, go to the ""Help me code for dx year."" section. Choose 2010 or later and the most current manual will appear. We recommend that you save a copy of the PDF on your computer.
","2014" "20140016","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for this situation? See discussion.","Patient has 2 bladder tumors, both invasive -- one is transitional cell carcinoma (8120/3) and the other is papillary TCC (8130/3). They have the same extent of disease, both involve the lamina propria. Is this 8120, because of the Note under rule H11 or is this 8130 because under rule H12, it says 'papillary carcinoma and transitional cell carcinoma'? If so, what is the meaning of the note under rule H11?","Rule H12 applies, code to 8130.
The note under H11 is intended to explain the order of the rules; that is, why the rule to code papillary transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H12) follows the rule to code transitional/urothelial cell carcinoma (H11).
","2014" "20140015","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there an instruction missing under Rule PH22 of the 2014 Heme Manual that addresses when it might be appropriate to code primary site to C779 for a Stage II lymphoma? See discussion.","It appears there is no instruction under PH22 that covers Example 5 (The patient has a history of Stage II lymphoma, no other information is available). All the bulleted instructions are for organ and lymph node combination involvement. Was the 2010 Heme Rule PH31 (Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified) supposed to be listed under PH22? There does appear to be an empty bullet on the current web version.","The 5th bullet under Rule PH 22 was inadvertently omitted. A corrected version of the Heme manual will be posted soon. Thank you for identifying this omission.
In the meantime, please add the following to PH22:
Code the primary site to lymph nodes, NOS (C779) when lymph node(s) are involved but no primary site/particular lymph node region is identified.
","2014" "20140014","First course treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Would infrared coagulation be coded as treatment for AIN III of the anus/anal canal? See discussion.","SINQ 20051064 indicates infrared coagulation is not treatment for cancer. Internet search explains that infrared coagulation delivers heat to destroy the tissue so it can be removed. In our region it is currently used to treat internal and external anal low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). While it is understandable that this wouldn't be coded as treatment for an invasive anal primary, could it be treatment for an in situ tumor? If it is treatment, should it be coded under Surgery code 15","The answer to SINQ 20050164 still applies. Do not code infrared coagulation as cancer treatment. It is used to coagulate blood vessels and not to destroy cancer tissue.","2014" "20140013","Primary site--Brain and CNS: How should primary site be coded for a medulloblastoma described as a ""posterior fossa mass"" and ""centered within the fourth ventricle""? See discussion.","The associated site code for medulloblastoma in the ICD-O-3 is C716. However, the SEER Manual specifically instructs to ignore the associated site code if a different primary site is noted. Although most medulloblastomas appear to arise in the cerebellum, when described as ""centered within the fourth ventricle"" can we assume that is the primary site and not simply invasion of the fourth ventricle from the cerebellum?","Code the primary to C717 for this case.
Code the primary site according to the origin of a particular medulloblastoma when it differs from the site code listed in ICD-O-3. The description ""centered within the fourth ventricle"" suggests that this medulloblastoma originated in the fourth ventricle.
","2014" "20140012","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code for this final diagnosis of a breast tumor: INVASIVE POORLY DIFFERENTIATED DUCTAL CARCINOMA WITH SQUAMOUS DIFFERENTIATION (METAPLASTIC FEATURES)?","","Code the histology to 8575/3.
The instruction for coding duct and another non-duct histology not listed in Table 3 was inadverantly left out of the rules. The default is to code to the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code which is 8575/3.
","2014" "20140011","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Is the diagnosis of Paget disease two years after a diagnosis of infiltrating duct carcinoma of the same breast a new primary? See discussion.","A patient was diagnosed and treated in 2010 for infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast. There was no mention of Paget disease. Then in 2012, the same patient was diagnosed with Paget disease of the nipple of the left breast. Rule M9 seems to apply; so this is the same primary, correct? And the information about the Paget disease is simply never captured, correct?","Yes, Rule M9 makes this a single primary. You could revise the original histology code to 8541/3 on the assumption that Paget was present at the original diagnosis, but not yet identified.","2014" "20140010","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this one primary or two? Follicular lymphoma grade 1 (9695/3) on 8/23/12 from an abdominal lymph node. On 1/6/14 an abdominal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large b cell lymphoma arising from high grade follicle center cell lymphoma. Patient has been on observation.","","1st primary, 8/23/12: Follicular lymphoma, grade 1 2nd primary, 1/6/14: Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma
Apply the multiple primary rules twice for this case. The 2012 diagnosis is follicular lymphoma. There are two histologies in 2014: diffuse large b cell lymphoma and follicle center cell lymphoma diagnosed at the same time in the same location. This is one primary per rule M4.
Then compare the 2012 diagnosis to the 2014 diagnosis.
Per the Hematopoietic Database, follicular lymphoma (all types) transforms to DLBCL. Per Rule M10, the DLBCL would be a second primary.
","2014" "20140009","Primary site: What primary site do I assign to a Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the parapharyngeal space when there is no other info available regarding a more definitive site within the parapharyngeal space? Each physician involved with the case states the primary site is the parapharyngeal space. This is a patient who was diagosed and treated elswhere and was seen at our hospital several months later for a radical neck dissection for suspected lymph node mets.
","","Assign C139 for a primary originating in the parapharyngeal space. This space contains part of the parotid gland, adipose tissue, lymph nodes, nerves, arteries and veins.
","2014" "20140008","Primary site: If text supports a pancreatobiliary primary with no other information what primary site code would be assigned? C249 biliary tract NOS, or C269 GI tract nos, or C809 unknown?","","Assign C269 in the absence of any additional information.","2014" "20140007","Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: How is surgery coded when a patient undergoes a mediastinoscopy with mediastinal lymph node sampling and then a later upper lobectomy? See discussion.","The mediastinal nodes were submitted as a separate specimen. The patient also had several peribronchial nodes identified within the lobectomy specimen.
Does code 33 (Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection) require a complete mediastinal lymph node dissection (i.e. the removal of all lymph nodes in mediastinal chain(s) as opposed to a selective sampling/dissection of lymph nodes from multiple mediastinal chains)?
","Assign code 33 in this situation. Code 33 can include mediastinal lymph node sampling.","2014" "20140006","Date Therapy Initiated--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 01/08/2014 (Surgery code 25), followed by a TAH/BSO on 02/07/2014 (Surgery code 50)? See discussion.","The hysteroscopic polypectomy showed multiple tissue fragments with invasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The hysterectomy and BSO removed an 8.2cm endometrioid carcinoma with no extra-uterine involvement.","Record 01/08/2014 for date therapy initiated assuming there was no therapy prior to this date. A polypectomy is a surgical procedure for purposes of coding date therapy initiated.","2014" "20140005","Primary site--Testis: In the absence of a specific statement that the patient's testicle(s) are descended, should the primary site for a testicular tumor be coded as C621 (Descended Testis) when the mass is palpable on physical exam or demonstrated on scrotal ultrasound? See discussion.","It seems the non-specific Testis, NOS (C629) code is being over used. Many testis cases have no documentation of the patient's testicular descention. However, testicular tumors in adults are frequently detected by palpation or scrotal ultrasound. An undescended testis (a testis absent from the normal scrotal position) would be non-palpable or not amenable to imaging via a scrotal ultrasound.","Unless the testicle is stated to be undescended, it is reasonable to code C621 for primary site. Reserve C629 for cases with minimal or conflicting information.","2014" "20140004","Grade--Liver: How should grade be coded for a liver lesion treated with radio frequency ablation (RFA) followed by a transplant showing moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma? See discussion.","The SEER Manual emphasizes the importance of coding grade only prior to neoadjuvant treatment as systemic treatment and radiation can alter a tumor's grade. This patient did not have neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation, but did undergo a prior surgical procedure (RFA) in an attempt to destroy tumor tissue. The subsequent transplant showed residual moderately differentiated HCC.","For this case, record the grade specified even though it is after RFA. RFA is not systemic or radiation treatment and should not alter the grade.","2014" "20140003","Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Sites--Endometrium: How are these fields coded for an endometrial primary when the patient undergoes a radical tumor cytoreduction including modified radical hysterectomy, BSO, omentectomy, resection of intra-abdominal and intrapelvic implants, and partial cystectomy? See discussion.","When other regional sites (besides the omentum) are removed with the primary site, how is Surgical Procedure of Other Site coded? There is no cytoreduction surgery code for endometrial primaries, and this patient does not appear to qualify for any of the specific pelvic exenteration codes.
Per SINQ 20091118, an omentectomy is not coded in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field when it is performed with a hysterectomy.
","In general, record surgery of sites/organs not covered in the surgery of primary site codes under surgery of other site. For this case, code the partial cystectomy under surgery of other site. As you point out, the omentectomy is not recorded under surgery of other site when performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary.","2014" "20140002","Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with ""well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)"" reportable? See discussion.","SINQ 20130027 states that ""well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor"" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while ""carcinoid"" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between ""well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor"" of the appendix and a ""carcinoid"" of the appendix.","Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. ""Carcinoid"" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.
When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.
","2014" "20140001","Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of ""intermediate differentiation""? See discussion.","Per a web search, the term ""pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation"" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression ""intermediate differentiation"" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.
Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for ""intermediate differentiation"" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?
","Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.
Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.
","2014" "20130222","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is the histology coded for a single bladder tumor showing invasive urothelial carcinoma with extensive divergent differentiation including small cell carcinoma, micropapillary carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma features? See Discussion.","MP/H rules seem to lead to Rule H8 which indicates that one use the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. If one applies Rule H8, the histology is coded to 8131/3 [micropapillary urothelial carcinoma]. That would ignore the small cell carcinoma, which seems prognostically more significant.","Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. This will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.","2013" "20130221","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate following a previous diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.","Would a second prostate primary with histology coded to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] be accessioned for the following examples? Or are these metastases despite the different histologies?
Example 1: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2001, no treatment given. Metastatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma diagnosed 03/2012 on liver biopsy with a physician's statement in 4/2012 that the prostate is likely the cause of the metastasis to the liver.
Example 2: Prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 2006, treated with TURP. Bone marrow biopsy in 5/2012 shows involvement by metastatic small cell carcinoma with morphologic and immunophenotypic features that argue against prostatic adenocarcinoma. The oncologist assessment states, ""The patient has Stage 4 small cell carcinoma of the prostate and the bone marrow biopsy path shows metastatic small cell carcinoma (likely prostate in origin).""
","Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10.
In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result they are not covered by Rule M3.
","2013" "20130220","Reportability--Thyroid: Is a hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm of the thyroid reportable? See Discussion.","The pathology comment states: Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is considered by some to represent a variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma because of the similar nuclear cytology, immunoprofile and RET-oncogene rearrangements.","Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm is not reportable.
Hyalinizing trabecular neoplasm, or hyalinizing trabecular tumor, is a synonym for hyalinizing trabecular adenoma [8336/0] in the ICD-O-3. The 2004 WHO classification states that ""fine needle aspiration biopsy is often interpreted as papillary carcinoma because of the nuclear features in the tumor.""
","2013" "20130219","Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Breast: Can a mammogram BIRADS 4 or 5 assessment be used to assess reportability and can the date of the mammogram be used to code the date of diagnosis? See Discussion.","
Can the BIRADS number be used to assess reportability? Can a BIRADS assessment of ""suspicious"" be used to code the date of diagnosis?
","BIRADS category 4 and category 5 mammograms are not to be interpreted as a reportable ""malignancy"" for cancer registry purposes nor are they to be used to code the date of diagnosis should the patient subsequently have a malignancy confirmed.","2013" "20130218","","","","2013" "20130216","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Need help determining primary site for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma 9680/3 confirmed pathologically in right ovary and soft tissue left adnexa. No lymph nodes examined pathologically. Patient treated outside and no access to notes. See discussion.
","CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.
Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional.
","Use Rule PH25 and code primary site to C569.
First determine if the iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes are regional for Ovary. Use AJCC TNM or Collaborative Stage. Per AJCC 7th edition, regional lymph nodes for ovary include iliac and para-aortic (pg. 419). Therefore, this case involves an organ and its regional lymph nodes. Use appendix C to determine how to code a lymph node primary. It should not be used to determine whether lymph nodes are regional for a specific organ.
","2013" "20130215","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis synonymous with an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children reportable? See Discussion.
","Pathology report states: Prominent T-cell infiltrate with frequent immunoblast-like cells. COMMENT: Findings consistent with an acute EBV-associated hemophagocytic process. In addition, there is a prominent CD8 + T-cell infiltrate with many large, activated forms. This T-cell process may represent an EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.
EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children is listed in the Heme database. However, throughout multiple admissions, the oncologist states the diagnosis as ""hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis"". Are the two the same condition?
The patient is being treated with Etoposide.
","Per Appendix F, do not report this case based on the information provided.
The oncologist likely used the pathology report and clinical factors to determine the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, which is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). This clinical syndrome is associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, it must state ""fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome"" (in a child) to be reportable (9724/3).
The pathology report for this case is not definitive. It states that the process ""may"" represent the EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disorder in children.
Follow back on this case to confirm reportability if possible.
","2013" "20130214","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH20 apply if a patient with lymphoma has bilateral axillary and bilateral inguinal lymph node involvement?","Rule PH20 states to code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by ICD-O-3 are involved. Note 1 further states that one is to use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes.","Rule PH21 applies to this situation which states to code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. Axillary nodes are coded to C773 and inguinal nodes are coded to C774. There are two lymph node regions involved. Code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph nodes].
If this patient had only bilateral axillary OR only bilateral inguinal nodes are involved, then PH20 would have applied and you would code to the specific lymph node region mentioned.
","2013" "20130213","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code the primary site for a marginal zone lymphoma involving bilateral axillary lymph nodes and inguinal lymph nodes, bone marrow and bilateral orbits that the physician refers to as a bilateral orbital lymphoma, Stage IV? See Discussion.","None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.
Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH24, code primary site to orbit. According to Rule PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. Note 2 under this rule also instructs one to capture the secondary involvement of distant lymph nodes and/or bone marrow in CS extension fields.
If the physician had not confirmed the primary site as orbit, you would have used Rule PH22 when the primary site is not indicated.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130212","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a case reportable in which the pathology report is negative for plasmacytoma but a subsequent physician's clinical diagnosis is plasmacytoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is reportable if the patient was treated for plasmacytoma. When the physician calls the case plasmacytoma and treats the patient accordingly, report the case.
See Case Reportability Instructions #6: Report the case when there is a clinical diagnosis (physician's statement) of a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.
Note 1: The clinical diagnosis may be a final diagnosis found within the medical record or recorded on a scan (CT, MRI for example)
Note 2: Report the case even if the diagnostic tests are equivocal. A number of hematopoietic neoplasms are ""diagnoses of exclusion"" in which the diagnostic tests are equivocal and the physician makes the clinical diagnosis based on the equivocal tests and the clinical picture. See the Heme DB for definitive diagnostic methods for the specific neoplasm being abstracted.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130211","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a bone marrow shows low grade mature B cell lymphoma with IgM paraprotein - macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.","Physician note: Bone marrow shows 10% involvement with low grade lymphoma. Assessment: Low grade mature B cell lymphoma with IgM paraprotein - macroglobulinemia.
The multiple primaries calculator indicates two primaries are to be reported. However, the physician stated that Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia is another name for this patient's lymphoma.
There were no enlarged lymph nodes seen on the CT scan. The proposed treatment for this patient is Rituxan for the macroglobulinemia.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. The bone marrow initially showed a non-specific B-cell lymphoma. WM is a type of B-cell neoplasm. After immunophenotyping, a more specific histologic diagnosis of WM was made. In this case a single histology (WM) is diagnosed by the definitive diagnostic method (serum paraprotein demonstrating IgM), so it accessioned as a single primary.
Per PH16, code the histology to 9761/3 [Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM)] and the primary site to C420 [blood].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130210","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does Rule PH27 apply meaning that primary site is coded to C809 or would it be more appropriate to code to C269 GI Tract NOS since all disease involves the GI tract and this is more specific?
Extranodal lymphoma first diagnosed in the stomach (fundus and antrum) which upon further investigation also involved the small bowel (MALT Lymphoma) in the absence of lymph node findings. MD staged this IIE. Initial thought was Gastric, but PET/CT indicated abnormal uptake involving loop of distended small bowel in the pelvis.
","","Assign C269 for Gastrointestinal tract, NOS. Apply Rule PH24, code to the organ when only an organ is involved. This rule can be used for NOS sites such as GI tract, NOS.
Based on the information provided, this lymphoma is confined to the GI tract -- stomach and small bowel.
","2013" "20130209","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new bone marrow diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia that follows a 2007 treated diagnosis of a JAK-2 positive polycythemia vera a new primary?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M10, abstract two primaries. Per the Heme DB, polycythemia vera [9950/3] transforms to an acute myelogenous leukemia [9861/3]. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (e.g., polycythemia vera) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (e.g., acute myelogenous leukemia) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130208","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a bone marrow shows slightly hypercellular marrow with acute myeloid leukemia, non-M3 type and the flow cytometry is also consistent with acute myeloid leukemia, non-M3 type?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Without further information as to the type of acute myeloid leukemia, code the histology to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. If further information on the specific acute myeloid leukemia becomes available, update the histology code.
Document that the pathology report states the acute myeloid leukemia is a ""non-M3 type"" in a text field. This documentation will help explain the choice of 9861/3 for this case. M3 refers to one of the eight FAB subtypes described by a group of French, American, and British leukemia experts in the 1970's who divided acute myeloid leukemias into subtypes, M0 through M7. They classified the disease based on the type of cell from which the leukemia developed and how mature the cells were. This was based largely on how the leukemia cells looked under the microscope after routine staining.
In this case, all we know is that the histology does not pathologically represent the M3 (acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL)) form of acute myeloid leukemia. We do not know which type of acute myeloid leukemia it does represent.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130207","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new primary reported for the diagnosis of plasmacytoma associated with a pathological fracture if it follows a diagnosis five years ago of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.","Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.
Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was ""plasmacytoma."" The discharge summary states, ""multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions"".
Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per the Abstractor Notes section, this case represents a single primary. Histology is coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma], which is now advanced.
Review the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for multiple myeloma. It states that in multiple myeloma there is generalize bone marrow involvement. It further states that lytic bone lesions and bone tumor masses of plasma cells (plasmacytomas) are signs of advanced disease. According to the Discharge Summary, this patient had multiple lytic lesions and plasmacytoma which indicates advanced disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130206","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What rule applies to code a primary site for a peripheral blood diagnosis of marginal zone lymphoma that has a positive flow cytometry/FISH analysis when no biopsies are performed, scans show no evidence of disease, exam indicates no lymph nodes are palpable and the physician's clinical diagnosis ""marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1""? See Discussion.","PE: No palpable lymph nodes.
PET scan: No spleen or lymph node uptake; no uptake anywhere in the body.
Peripheral blood and flow cytometry/FISH analysis diagnosis: Marginal zone lymphoma.
No bone marrow or biopsy of any lymph nodes done. Doctor states ""marginal zone lymphoma, unspecified site, stage 1.""
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown primary]. According to Rule PH27 one is to code the primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.
If further workup is done and a primary site is determined, update the primary site for this case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130205","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for each in a case of infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma of the breast (8522) with Paget disease of the same breast?","","Abstract as two primaries according to rule M12. We interpret this as one tumor with infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma (8522) and a second tumor with Paget disease (8540).","2013" "20130204","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is histology coded for a tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma? See Discussion.","Per the resected specimen final diagnosis COMMENT in the pathology report: Tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma is a relatively new renal epithelial neoplasm that has been added to an updated WHO classification of renal tumors. (Srigley et al. The International Society of Urologic Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1469-1489). The majority of tubulocystic renal cell carcinomas reported in the literature (greater than 90%) have behaved in an indolent manner.","Code the histology to 8312/3 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS] per Rule H3. The term ""tubulocystic"" is not a specific renal cell histology according to our kidney pathology expert.","2013" "20130203","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1) and MRI evidence of dozens of cavernous angiomas/malformations throughout the supra and infratentorium? See Discussion.","9/9/11 IMP: Presymptomatic cerebral cavernous malformation disorder (CCM1).
9/9/11 Brain MRI: FINDINGS: Total of 14 foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. In rt frontal lobe, total of 4 foci. Of remaining 10 small foci, 4 are in cerebellum, 1 in rightward pons, 1 in lt temporal lobe, 1 in lt occipital lobe, 1 in rt occipital lobe, 1 in posterior rt temporal lobe, & 1 in lt frontal lobe. Lesions in bilateral occipital lobes & lt temporal lobe are associated w/weighted signal suggestive of hemosiderin & are most c/w additional cavernous malformations. IMPRESSION: Just over a dozen scattered foci of gradient susceptibility throughout supra & infratentorium.
9/13/13 Brain MRI. Clinical diagnosis: Cerebral cavernous angiomas. FINDINGS: Approximately a dozen scattered foci. 2 largest in rt frontal lobe. Remaining small foci identified w/in cerebellum, rightward pons, rt occipital lobe, rt temporal lobe, & lt frontal lobe. Many are less conspicuous than in 2011 & a few that were present on prior study are not evident on current exam. This is likely due to differences in technique. IMPRESSION: Redemonstration of numerous scattered foci c/w cavernous malformations.
","This case is not reportable as is. The clinical diagnosis on the 9/13/13 MRI was ""cerebral cavernous angiomas,"" but the final impression on the MRI was a re-demonstration of the numerous scattered foci consistent with cavernous malformations seen on the previous 9/9/11 MRI. There was no reportable statement of cavernous angioma. Cavernous malformation is not a reportable neoplasm; it has no valid ICD-O-3 code.
Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS. When they arise in blood vessels or bone, they are not reportable. Do not report vascular tumors when there is not enough information to determine whether they arise in the dura or parenchyma or elsewhere.
","2013" "20130202","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported when a solitary plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 (T spine) is followed by another solitary plasmacytoma (L spine, different primary site) in 2013? See Discussion.","In the Heme Manual it indicates one is to abstract a second primary when a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic) is followed by a plasma cell myeloma (acute) greater than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
The Heme Manual does not indicate what to do when a solitary plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 (T spine) is followed by another solitary plasmacytoma (L spine, different primary site) in 2013. The physician specifically stated the patient does not have multiple myeloma. Is this case one or two primaries?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, this is a single primary. According to Rule M2, the single histology is always the single primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130201","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported for a patient with a 6/5/12 RUL biopsy that is positive for MALT lymphoma and a 6/7/12 cervical lymph node biopsy that is positive for follicular lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M15, abstract two primaries for this case. According to M15, use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The result is two primaries, MALT lymphoma [9699/3] and follicular cell lymphoma [9690/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130200","Primary Site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site for a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the testicles, stomach, rectum and bone marrow, when no lymph nodes are involved?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown]. Rule PH27 states one is to code the primary site to unknown [C809] when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR there is multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130199","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Does breast Rule M10, 'Tumors that are lobular (8520) and intraductal or duct are a single primary"" apply if you have two tumors in the same breast, one ductal and the other tubulolobular (8524) or are they separate primaries per Rule M12?
","","Apply Rule M10 to this case. Tubulolobular is now classified as a variant of lobular. Code to lobular, NOS (8520) because Tubulolobular does not have a specific ICD-O-3 code.
","2013" "20130198","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Rectosigmoid: How many primaries are accessioned for a synchronous diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma and a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma when both arise in the rectosigmoid junction? See Discussion.","Total colectomy showed neuroendocrine carcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction, as well as a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma of the rectosigmoid junction. Is this a single primary per Rule M13 (a frank adenocarcinoma and an adenocarcinoma in a polyp) or Rule M16 (adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma)? Or are these two primaries?","Accession two primaries per Rule M17, neuroendocrine carcinoma [8246/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199], and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199]. There are two tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that differ at the third number.
Rule M13 does not apply to neuroendocrine carcinoma. Rule M16 does not apply to this case because there are two specific histologies.
","2013" "20130197","MP/H Rules/Histology--Urinary System: What is the histology code for a 2007 and later diagnosis of papillary carcinoma of the urinary system organs? See Discussion.","Will histology code 8050 [papillary carcinoma, NOS] be used for cases diagnosed 2007 and later? The MP/H Rule H4 for urinary primaries states to code papillary carcinoma to code 8130, but Rule M6 includes tumors coded to 8050.
The IARC publication Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs uses code 8130 only for papillary carcinoma.
","Code the histology to 8130 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma] for cases of papillary carcinoma of the urinary system diagnosed 2007 and later.
Histology code 8050 [papillary carcinoma, NOS] should not be used for papillary carcinoma of the urinary system diagnosed starting in 2007. Rule M6 includes this histology to take pre-2007 cases into consideration.
","2013" "20130195","Laterality--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is laterality coded to 0 [not paired] for all lymphoma cases including paired sites (e.g., breast, lung)?","","Laterality coding for lymphomas is based on the primary site not histology. Laterality describes the side of a paired organ or side of the body on which the reportable tumor originated. Determine whether laterality should be coded for each primary.
Laterality coding instructions are located in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. See pages 68-70 in the 2013 manual,
http://www.seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2013/SPCSM_2013_maindoc.pdf.
","2013" "20130194","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are blood vessel tumors arising in CNS sites reportable? See Discussion.
","Previous instructions from the CDC (Cancer - Collection and Coding Clarification for CNS Tumors - NPCR) stated that non-malignant blood vessel tumors in CNS sites are reportable and should be coded to the CNS site in which they arose. SINQ 20081113 also states that a blood vessel tumor, cavernoma/cavernous hemangioma, in the brain is reportable. However, SINQ 20120034 contradicts this previous answer stating the site should be coded to C490 [blood vessel] for a blood vessel tumor (venous angioma) in the brain.
If blood vessel tumors arising in a CNS site are no longer reportable, please specify the site/histology codes for these non-reportable tumors and when this change took place.
","Vascular tumors of the CNS are reportable when they arise in the dura or parenchyma of the CNS and should be coded accordingly. The instructions in the CDC book regarding primary site coding are not the most current instructions.SEER assumed responsibility for brain and CNS reporting instructions in 2007.
The tumor in SINQ 20120034 is not reportable because it arises in a blood vessel. The cavernous hemangioma in SINQ 20081113 is reportable because the primary site is the white matter of the cerebral cortex.
","2013" "20130193","Sex: How is sex coded for a transsexual diagnosed with a testicular primary? See Discussion.","The Physical Exam states patient is male. There is a note that the patient is transsexual. There is no indication that the orchiectomy was part of gender reassignment surgery.","Code sex to 1 [male]. When the natal sex is known, code that over transsexual.","2013" "20130192","MP/H Rules/Histology--Pleura: How is histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is ""malignant neoplasm, compatible with malignant mesothelioma"" if the COMMENT section of the pathology report indicates the tumor has a mixed epithelial and sarcomatoid pattern? See Discussion.","This case was discussed with a pathologist who feels the correct histology should be biphasic mesothelioma (9053/3) because there are both epithelial and sarcomatoid components to this tumor. However, applying the current MP/H Rules, the histology is coded to 9050/3 (mesothelioma, NOS) because the term ""pattern"" cannot be used to code a more specific histologic type for invasive tumors. If this truly is a biphasic mesothelioma, that data is lost for researchers because the current MP/H Rules fail to capture this information. Should the term pattern be used to code the more specific histology in this case?","Code the histology to malignant mesothelioma, NOS [9050/3]. Apply the MP/H Rules as written until they are revised. The word ""pattern"" and other terms will be reconsidered for the next iteration of the rules.","2013" "20130191","Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Bladder: How is the systemic treatment/surgery sequence field coded for a 2013 case if the patient has a TURBT followed by multi-agent chemotherapy, and then a cystoprostatectomy followed by post-operative multi-agent chemotherapy?","For cases diagnosed in 2012 and later, code 7 (surgery both before and after systemic therapy) seems like the most appropriate answer. However, previous SINQ entries 20091055 and 20071102 have conflicting answers regarding surgery before and after systemic therapy. Do these SINQ entries apply to a 2013 diagnosis? Would the systemic treatment/surgery sequence be coded 7 because this patient had surgery then chemotherapy followed by more surgery? Should the post-operative systemic treatment be ignored in coding the sequence in this case?","Code the Systemic/Surgery Sequence to 7 [surgery both before and after systemic therapy] for this case.
The answers to SINQ 20091055 and 20071102 do not apply to a case diagnosed in 2013. These answers were posted prior to code 7 becoming effective in 2012.
","2013" "20130190","Reportability: Is a thymoma, type B3 malignant and, therefore, reportable? See Discussion.
","Recent information received from a registrar/pathologist states the WHO classifies well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] as a synonym for type B3 thymoma.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2021
Thymoma, type B3 [8585/1] is not reportable. Well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] is reportable.
WHO lists well-differentiated thymic carcinoma as a synonym for type B3 thymoma, but indicates the behavior code differs as indicated above.
See the applicable SEER manual for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.
","2013" "20130189","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are the terms 'mass' and 'lesion' reportable terms for accessioning brain and CNS primaries? See Discussion.
","With respect to reportability, the SEER Manual mentions 'tumor' and 'neoplasm,' but not 'mass' or 'lesion.' The SEER MP/H Manual states tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm are equivalent terms for determining multiple primaries, but does this apply to reportability? If not, what is the distinction?
","'Mass' and 'lesion' are not reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS tumors.
Reportable terms for benign/borderline brain and CNS primaries are 'tumor' and 'neoplasm.' These terms appear in the ICD-O-3. 'Lesion' and 'mass' do not appear in the ICD-O-3. Do not use the MP/H Manual to determine reportability; page 2 of the SEER Manual is the correct source for reportability instructions.
","2013" "20130188","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.","A previously submitted question in 2012 stated this was reportable, but recent answers seem to indicate this is not reportable. Please clarify whether this is reportable or not.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable.
We apologize for the confusion that this has caused. The term ""plasma cell neoplasm"" was not included in the 2010 Heme DB and Manual. It was added to the 2012 Heme DB and Manual after repeated questions were received regarding this diagnosis. After further investigation, this term is being removed from the Manual and DB.
According to WHO, 'Plasma cell neoplasm' is an umbrella term that includes MGUS, plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, immunoglobulin deposition diseases, extraosseous plasmacytoma, and osteosclerotic myeloma. Of these, only plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, and extraosseous plasmacytoma are reportable. Physicians may use the term 'plasma cell neoplasm' when they are not sure what the specific disease is. Plasma cell neoplasm is not reportable; however, follow up on these types of patients is recommended because continued evaluation is likely to determine a more specific disease. A reportable neoplasm may be diagnosed at a later date.
Cases of plasma cell neoplasm diagnosed 2010 or later are not reportable. This change should not have taken place as a result of the update in the 2012 Manual. At this time SEER is not requiring registries to go back and review plasmacytoma or multiple myeloma cases that were collected based on this terminology.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130187","Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion.","A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma.","A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid.","2013" "20130186","Grade: Can the FIGO grade be used to code the morphologic grade? See discussion.
","FIGO Grade is coded in CS SSF 7 in the Corpus Uteri schema. The SEER Manual does not address using FIGO grade for coding grade in morphology.
","Do not use FIGO grade to code the grade field. See the sentence below the table in Instruction #6 in the Grade Coding Instructions for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/
","2013" "20130185","Reportability/Behavior: Is HGSIL (high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) of the vulva or vagina reportable and is it a synonym for histology code 8077/2 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]?
","","For cases diagnosed 2018 and later
HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III.
","2013" "20130184","Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022
A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant].
","2013" "20130183","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood finding consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23 reportable if, immunophenotypically, the case is consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.
","Peripheral blood: Final diagnosis: Leukocytosis absolute lymphocytosis monoclonal, lambda restricted B-cell population w/co-expression of CD5 and CD23 absolute increase in CD4=helper T cells. See comment.
Comment: Peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambda-restricted mature B cell population with co-expression of CD5 and CD23, which is immunophenotypically consistent with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype. However, the absolute monoclonal population is only 3.02k/ul.
According to WHO criteria, in the absence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the monoclonal lymphocyte population must be greater than or equal to 5.0 k/ul. Therefore, in the absence of clinical evidence of extramedullary tissue involvement, the diagnosis is most consistent with a monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis. Review of initial analysis reveals well-defined groups of cells within lymphocyte, monocyte and granulocyte gates as defined by CD45 and sid-scatter characteristics (%'s are listed). Overall, peripheral blood findings are consistent with involvement by monoclonal, lambada-restricted B cell population with a chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma immunophenotype.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is reportable. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis on peripheral blood that is ""consistent with"" involvement by chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) immunophenotype.
The ambiguous terminology ""consistent with"" in the flow cytometry report is acceptable to determine reportability. Given that it is the only reportable histology mentioned in the scenario, it is also used to code histology. The instruction ""Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology"" is intended to be used when there is a reportable NOS histology and reportable more specific histology stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130182","Primary site--Head and Neck: How is primary site coded if a floor of mouth biopsy reveals microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma but the definitive resection of the tongue and floor of mouth unifocal lesion reveals only in situ squamous cell cancer? See Discussion.","Patient with overlapping lesion of tongue and floor of mouth. Initial biopsy of floor of mouth reveals microinvasive squamous cell cancer. Definitive resection reveals in situ squamous cell cancer. Pathology report states unifocal tumor. The tumor site on pathology report is documented as involving the tongue and floor of mouth.
Should the primary site be coded to floor of mouth because it is the site of invasive disease? Or is primary site C148 [overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx] because invasion should not be used to determine primary site?
","Code the primary site to C068 [overlapping lesion of other and unspecified parts of the mouth]. Based on the information provided, this is a tumor described as a ""book-leaf"" lesion a lesion that overlaps the floor of the mouth and the underside of the tongue.","2013" "20130181","Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Rule M4 or the Heme DB be used to determine whether diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the large intestine and peripheral T-cell lymphoma of the bone marrow represents one or two primaries? See Discussion.","The Heme DB identifies these as new primaries:
10/12/12 Large intestine, biopsy: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
10/12/12 Bone marrow biopsy: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M15, accession two primaries. According to Rule M15, use the multiple primaries calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. Per the calculator, this scenario represents two primaries.
Assuming the only area of involvement is the large intestine, code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma] and per Rule PH24 code the primary site to C189 [colon, NOS]. According to PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.
Rule PH26 applies to the second primary. Assuming the only area of involvement is the bone marrow, code the histology to 9702/3 [peripheral T-cell lymphoma] and code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. According to PH26, one is to code the primary site to bone marrow (C421) when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow.
Rule M4 does not apply for this case. Rule M4 applied when you have two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the same anatomic location. That is not the case in this scenario.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130180","Histology--Pancreas: What is the difference between pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) [8240/3] and the new ICD-O-3 terms pancreatic endocrine tumor, benign [8150/0] and pancreatic endocrine tumor, malignant [8150/3]? See Discussion.","SEER Inquiry 20120035 discusses the reportability of pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) tumors.","The difference is that 8150 is for islet cell tumors. The preferred name was changed by WHO/IARC to reflect the current language used by pathologists to describe islet cell tumors [8150].
The 8240 histology code added the neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1, low or well differentiated terms to the carcinoid ICD-O name.
Islet cell tumors are more aggressive than the pancreatic NET tumors. Treatment and prognosis are determined by the histologic type. While the histology code 8150 is not new, the histology name has been updated.
","2013" "20130179","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries and what is the histology for each primary if a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] and a focus of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] occur in a splenectomy specimen? See Discussion.","Patient presents with a huge mass in the spleen with direct extension to gastric fundus.
12/1/12 Splenectomy: Macroscopic nodules compatible with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. Further, in the white pulp there are changes compatible with focus of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3].
Under the Transformations To section in the Heme DB, splenic marginal zone lymphoma transforms to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
","Per Rule M4, this is a single primary. According to Rule M4, one is to abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s).
Per Rule PH11, code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C422 [spleen]. According to PH11, one is to code the primary site to the site of origin, lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organ(s) and histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.
","2013" "20130178","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is refractory iron deficiency anemia reportable?","","Per Appendix F, refractory iron deficiency anemia is not reportable. It is not a clonal disorder and, therefore, is not malignant. Refractory iron deficiency anemia is a condition that is unresponsive to oral iron treatment.","2013" "20130177","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What rule and histology code apply when a TURB final diagnosis is small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and high grade urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.","The patient has a 6 cm tumor arising in posterior-lateral bladder extending to prostate, obliterates seminal vesicle, and invades pelvic wall.
TURB final diagnosis: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. High grade urothelial carcinoma involves 10% of tumor.
Following the current MP/H single tumor rules, it appears Rule H8 applies. Per Rule H8, code the numerically higher code of 8120. By following this rule, it does not seem the histology code fairly represents this tumor.
","There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. The best option is to code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.
This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.
","2013" "20130176","Reportability--Ovary: Is an adult granulosa cell tumor of the right adnexa reportable if the left adnexa, diaphragm and paratubal tissue are reported to be consistent with metastasis? See discussion.
","Per the pathology report: Right adnexa: adult granulosa cell tumor. Left adnexa: Foci of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in paratubal tissue. Diaphragm smears: consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor. Comment: The morphology and immunoprofile of the cellular aggregates in the paratubal soft tissue are consistent with metastatic granulosa cell tumor.
","Based on the information provided, this case of adult granulosa cell tumor is malignant and reportable. According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""though granulosa cell tumor NOS/ adult NOS is 8620/1, the presence of peritoneal implants or metastases, and/or lymph node metastases indicates the tumor is malignant, and it should be coded /3.""
Note that the presence of implants or metastases does not indicate malignancy in the case of low malignant potential ovarian epithelial tumors. Our path expert explains ""in contrast, by convention the behavior of borderline/LMP ovarian epithelial tumors is determined by the ovarian primary, and is /1, even though there may be peritoneal implants/metastases, or metastatic disease in lymph nodes. The treatment may vary in these circumstances, but to my knowledge the decision as to the tumor designation remains based on the primary tumor.""
","2013" "20130174","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Given that the current MP/H rules do not recognize specific types of lobular carcinoma, should the histology for an invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma be coded to 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] or 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma]? See Discussion.","The MP/H rules do not seem to recognize specific types lobular carcinomas. As invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is ""a very rare and distinct morphological variant of invasive lobular carcinoma,"" (ncbi.nim.nih.gov). Is this histology best reflected in code 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] or 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma]?","Code the histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast now describes five variants of invasive lobular carcinoma. These variants are solid type, alveolar, pleomorphic, tubulolobular, and mixed-type. WHO has not yet proposed new ICD-O codes be assigned to these variants. The upcoming solid tumor (MP/H) revisions will include instructions on coding these variants.
","2013" "20130173","Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site and histology coded when a bladder biopsy reveals myeloid sarcoma and a simultaneously performed bone marrow biopsy demonstrates acute myeloid leukemia? See Discussion.","12/22/11 Bladder biopsy: myeloid sarcoma,
12/22/11 Bone marrow biopsy: acute myeloid leukemia.
Presenting symptoms were urological with three month history of painful hematuria and hydronephrosis with solid mass of bladder.
Prior to biopsy hem/onc states bladder mass of unknown pathology. CBC revealed peripheral blasts and Auer rods -- presumed diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). No statement from physician as to where disease originated.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M3, abstract a single primary when a sarcoma (myeloid sarcoma) is diagnosed either simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage (acute myeloid leukemia). Per the notes for Rule M3, the sarcoma is a solid manifestation of the associate leukemia.
Per PH10, code the histology to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. PH10 states one is to code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) or any of the specific AML histologies (9840/3, 9865/3-9867/3, 9869/3-9874/3, 9891/3, 9895/3-9898/3, 9910/3, 9911/3 and 9931/3) when the diagnosis is myeloid sarcoma (9930/3) AND there is a simultaneous or previous diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130172","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what is the histology for each if a bone marrow diagnosis reveals co-existent systemic mastocytosis and a lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm? See Discussion.","11/7/12 Peripheral blood flow cytometry: small population of clonal CD5- CD10- B-cells consistent with a B-cell lymphoproliferative process.
1/16/13 Bone marrow final diagnosis: co-existent systemic mastocytosis and lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm.
B-cell component of lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm constitutes 20% of bone marrow cellularity and the plasma cell component approximately 20%. The differential diagnosis includes marginal zone lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma.
Flow cytometry: kappa monotypic B-cells and plasma cells.
Comment: Co-existence of systemic mastocytosis and mature B-cell lymphoma meets the criteria for Systemic mastocytosis with Associated Clonal Hematological Non-Mast Cell Lineage Disease (SM-AHNMD).
From our physician's progress note: KIT-D816V-positive, CD117+/CD25+ /SM-AHNMD(40% of the nucleated cells as spindled mast cells) but also seemingly two distinct lymphoid neoplasms, a CD5-negative/CD10-negative B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasm consistent with occupying another 20% of the nucleated marrow space, together with an IgG-kappa-restricted (non-reportable diagnosis) occupying another 20% of the nucleated marrow space (and an accompanying 2.0 g/dl M-spike without hypercalcemia or anemia).
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, systemic mastocytosis with Associated Clonal Hematological Non-Mast Cell Lineage Disease (SM-AHNMD) is a synonym for systemic mastocytosis. Per Rule M2, this is one primary. Abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9741/3 [systemic mastocytosis].
Per the pathology report, the two diagnoses of systemic mastocytosis and mantle cell lymphoma meet the criteria for SM-AHNMD. The B-cell lymphoma is a symptom/marker of the AHNMD. In systemic mastocytosis with AHNMD, a myeloid or lymphatic malignancy is diagnosed with the SM. The prognosis is usually dominated by the non-mast cell malignancy.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130171","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""plasma cell neoplasm"" a synonym for multiple myeloma and is it reportable? See Discussion.","Path report in the comment section states ""plasma cell neoplasm such as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).""","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, plasma cell neoplasm is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell neoplasm is a disorder that has an abnormal number of plasma cells. MGUS is such a disorder, but it is not reportable.
According to WHO, 'Plasma cell neoplasms' is the umbrella term that includes MGUS, plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, immunoglobulin deposition diseases, extraosseous plasmacytoma, and osteosclerotic myeloma. Of these, only plasma cell myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma of bone, and extraosseous plasmacytoma are reportable.
Note: This terminology was added to the 2012 Hematopoietic Manual and Database for 1/1/2012. This should not have been added. If the only diagnosis is ""plasma cell neoplasm,"" this is not reportable. If the diagnosis is ""plasma cell neoplasm c/w multiple myeloma (or another reportable disease),"" then it would be a reportable disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130170","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for ""invasive carcinoma of the breast, no special type"" as the final diagnosis on a pathology report? See Discussion.
","Recently pathology reports for breast primaries are no longer listing invasive ductal carcinoma as the histology on many cases if the treating physician calls the cancer an invasive ductal carcinoma. The pathology report (final diagnosis and synopsis) state this is invasive carcinoma, no special type.
Upon inquiry to the pathology department, the response received stated, In 2012, the WHO got rid of ductal carcinoma as a specific type. So what would have been called Invasive ductal carcinoma, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), is now being called Invasive carcinoma, No Special Type (NST). In the new WHO classification, lobular, tubular, cribriform, mucinous, etc. are the special types. But ductal is gone.
Is this a change in terminology? Should these cases be coded as 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma, NOS] or 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?
","Code the histology to ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3] for a pathology report with a final diagnosis of ""invasive carcinoma, no special type."" Do not code the histology to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3].
The 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast refers to invasive ductal carcinoma as invasive carcinoma, no special type. The ICD-O-3 code remains the same as invasive duct carcinoma [8500/3]. The next revision to the MP/H Solid Tumor Rules will clarify this issue.
","2013" "20130168","Date of diagnosis--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the date of diagnosis coded to the date a bone marrow biopsy revealed ""plasma cell neoplasm; plasma cells are < 10%"" or the date a diagnosis of myeloma was noted in the Discharge Summary? See Discussion.","Bone marrow biopsy pathology states: Plasma Cell Neoplasm. The plasma cells are < 10%.
Subsequent to the bone marrow biopsy, the Discharge Summary indicated the patient has a diagnosis of myeloma, hypercalcemia and negative bone marrow surveys.
What date is used for the date of diagnosis?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Use the date of the Discharge Summary as the date of diagnosis. In this case, the date of diagnosis is the date the physician confirmed the diagnosis of myeloma using all information available.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130167","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a 2013 diagnosis of right leg skin nodules, consistent with plasmacytoma/plasma cell myeloma, follows a 3/20/07 biopsy diagnosis of multiple myeloma?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract this case as a single primary. Code the histology to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma].
Review the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for multiple myeloma. It states that in multiple myeloma there is generalized bone marrow involvement and that extramedullary involvement is diagnostic of advanced disease. This is a case of advanced multiple myeloma.
","2013" "20130166","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""indolent multiple myeloma"" reportable and synonymous with ""indolent/smoldering myeloma""? See Discussion.
","7/10/12 Diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)
7/27/12 Diagnosed with MGUS/smoldering myeloma. There was no intervention at this time.
In about October/November 2012 the diagnosis was reported as smoldering myeloma,.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Indolent myeloma [9732/3] and smoldering myeloma [9732/2] are reportable terms synonymous with plasma cell myeloma. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) [9765/1] is not reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130165","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries are reported and what is histology for the papillary carcinomas if a Classical cytomorphology with a follicular architecture is on the right and a Columnar cell cytomorphology with a follicular and papillary architecture is on the left? See Discussion.","
The answer seems to hinge on whether or not the two tumors differ at the third digit of histology. Can we code the histology based on the terms listed for variant or architecture?
","This is a single thyroid primary. The tumors are both papillary carcinoma with follicular architecture for the most part. Apply Rule M6 and abstract a single primary.","2013" "20130162","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is erythrocytosis of an unknown cause a reportable disease?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
No. Per Appendix F, erythrocytosis of an unknown cause is not reportable.
The diagnosis must state ""erythrocytosis megalosplenic"" to be reportable (9950/3).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130161","Primary Site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the primary site coded to C779 or C421 for a bone marrow that is positive for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the peripheral blood demonstrates leukemic involvement and the PET scan shows involvement of abdominal lymph nodes, spleen and throughout the bones? See Discussion.","1/11/13 Bone marrow bx: B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Flow cytometry of peripheral blood shows leukemia involvement.
PET scan shows involvement of abdominal lymph nodes, spleen and throughout the bones. The patient has an elevated WBC, anemia and thrombocytopenia.
The answer to SINQ 20120047 (which is no longer visible in the system) said to code B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma to bone marrow for primary site if there is bone marrow involvement. The Heme/Lymph Manual Rule PH7 says to code bone marrow as the primary site if bone marrow is the only site involved.
Following the manual, the primary site would be C779. However, according to the answer to SINQ 20120047, the primary site would be C421. Which is correct?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per the Heme DB, the histology B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia is synonymous with B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS. Per Rule PH8, for a neoplasm that can manifest as either leukemia lymphoma or leukemia lymphoma, one is to code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organs are involved. The Note 4 instruction states it is necessary to go to Module 7 (Rules PH18-PH27) to code the more specific primary site. In this case, use Rule PH22 to code primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] for the case you describe.
In this case, there is involvement of abdominal lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow and bone. There is no indication of the primary site. Per the Heme DB, the most frequent sites of involvement for the lymphoma are bone and lymph nodes. This is a Stage IV lymphoma.
The now inactivated SINQ 20120047, stated that based on the sites of involvement, this histology could be coded as either leukemia or lymphoma. If the only involvement is the bone marrow, the site is coded to C421 [bone marrow]. The involvement of peripheral blood does not change the primary site because such involvement is part of the leukemic process.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130160","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the histology be coded to a therapy-related myeloid neoplasm when the physician states the diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia is secondary to treatment with Imuran? See Discussion.","Patient has a diagnosis of AML for which the physician recommends a bone marrow transplant. The physician indicated the diagnosis is actually a secondary AML due to treatment with Imuran for polymyalgia rheumatica. The physician also stated this is a high risk type of AML.
Imuran is not a chemotherapy agent per SEER*Rx. Can the histology be coded as 9920/3 (e.g., Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, NOS) when the patient has not been treated with chemotherapy for a reportable disease? The physician is a bone marrow transplant expert who states the AML is therapy-related disease. Bone marrow disease is a listed as a risk for treatment with Imuran.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code this histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myeloid neoplasm] when the physician states the acute myeloid leukemia is therapy-related.
Therapy-related AML can result from any systemic therapy for benign or malignant diseases. In this case, AML resulted from immune system-suppressing therapy with Imuran for a benign disease, polymyalgia rheumatica. The drugs that induced the AML do not have to be listed in the SEER*Rx database.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130157","Primary Site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site code should be assigned and what rule justifies that code?
Scenario: Pleural effusion, underwent thoracentesis. Pleural fluid unexpectedly showed Large B-Cell Lymphoma. Extensive workup including CT & PET was done and all findings were within normal limits. No evidence of lymphoma was seen and no palpable adenopathy was found. The only indication of lymphoma was the malignant pleural effusion.
","","Code to pleura, C384.
Per the Hematopoietic database, Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma can originate in the pleural cavity.
","2013" "20130156","Other therapy--Heme and Lymphoid Neoplasms: Based on the hematopoietic manual instructions, is plasmapheresis coded as treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.","A patient, who was diagnosed with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia at another facility, presented to our facility for plasmapheresis on 12/27/2012. No other treatment was given.
How is the plasmapheresis coded for treatment?
","Do not code plasmapheresis as treatment. It does not modify the neoplasm.","2013" "20130155","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do we code diagnostic confirmation if the pathology report states the diagnosis of a skin biopsy is ""low-grade B cell lymphoma, most compatible with marginal zone lymphoma,"" genetic data includes positive rearrangement for immunoglobulin heavy chain gene favor a diagnosis of ""B cell lymphoma,"" and the physician's clinical diagnosis is ""cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma""?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code diagnostic confirmation to 3 [positive histology AND positive immunophenotyping studies (9590/3 - 9992/3)].
Immunoglobulin heavy and light chain genes rearranged is listed under Genetics Data in the Heme DB for 9699/3 [extranodal marginal zone lymphoma]. Given the documentation of this positive genetic finding and the positive bone marrow, code diagnostic confirmation to 3.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130152","Primary site/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site and histology coded for a 2013 diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma arising in a dermoid cyst of the third ventricle? See Discussion.","Patient has a dermoid cyst of the third ventricle of the brain diagnosed in 1998. In 2013 the cyst was removed and was diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma. An internet search revealed a journal article in the Journal or Neuro-Oncology that states, ""Although rare, malignant transformation of intracranial epithelial cysts has a poor prognosis."" The combination of site C715 [third ventricle, NOS] and histology 8070/3 [squamous cell carcinoma] fails SEER Edit IF 38_3: Primary site and Morphology Impossible.","According to the literature, intracranial squamous cell carcinoma is very rare with most cases arising from a preexisting benign epidermoid cyst. The combination of C71_ and 8070/3 should be allowed. We will submit a request to have this edit revised.","2013" "20130151","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site when a splenectomy shows ""T large granular lymphocytic leukemia"" and the peripheral blood flow cytometry is negative? See Discussion.","The physician note states there is no evidence of leukemia on peripheral blood. The disease is localized to the spleen. Is the primary site coded to the bone marrow [C421] or can it be coded to the spleen [C422]?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Leukemias are coded to the bone marrow per the Heme DB.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130150","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code histology code for a bladder TUR that demonstrates mixed invasive urothelial and small cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20041104 (prior to 2007 MP/H rules) states to code histology to 8045. The MP/H rules do not address this combination of urothelial and small cell carcinoma. The current MP/H rule that applies is Rule H8, code the higher histology (8120/3). However, if the histology is coded to 8120/3, the fact that small cell carcinoma exists will be lost. If the small cell carcinoma drives the treatment plan/prognosis, shouldn't this situation be reflected in the rules for coding histology?
","Code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma]. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.
This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H rules.
","2013" "20130149","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: What is the histology code for a testis primary with embryonal carcinoma (70%), yolk sac tumor (30%), and a focus of seminoma (<1%)? See Discussion.","The right orchiectomy specimen showed a mixed histology tumor. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes showed teratoma, NOS only. Does the presence of teratoma in the lymph nodes change the histology coding?
The MP/H Rules for Other Sites, Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) does not include the combination of embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor and seminoma. SINQ 20110013 does state the combination of embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor should be coded to histology 9065/3 [germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. In this case, is the focus of seminoma comprising <1% included when coding the histology? If the seminoma is included, Table 2 still does not address this combination.
","Code the histology to mixed germ cell tumor [9085/3] per Rule H16; code the appropriate combination/mixed code when there are multiple specific histologies.
According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs, tumors of more than one histologic type (mixed forms) can occur in any combination of various germ cell histologies including embryonal, yolk sac, teratoma, and choriocarcinoma. Mixed teratoma and seminoma is included under histology code 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor] in the ICD-O-3. The revised MP/H rules will expand on these mixed testicular histologies.
Priority for coding histology is using the diagnosis from the primary site (when possible) over the histology from a metastatic site. The presence of teratoma, NOS in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes does not change the histology code.
","2013" "20130148","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are ""spinal"" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion.","Are any of the following cases reportable?
Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?
Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated ""C3-4 nerve sheath tumor"" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a ""nerve sheath tumor"" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?
Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is ""intradural"" or ""of the nerve root."" In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed?
","Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be ""intradural"" or ""of the nerve root.""","2013" "20130147","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What the primary site for a diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis with multifocal multisystem involvement of the skin, chest, CNS and thyroid, but no evidence of involvement on a bone scan?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C809 [unknown].
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) includes three major groups:
When the disease is both multifocal and multisystem, code the primary site to unknown [C809] because there is no way to identify the origin of the neoplasm in this situation.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130146","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code for a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm/myelodysplastic syndrome overlap?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable]. Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, this neoplasm has the, ""Clinical laboratory and morphological features of myeloproliferative neoplasm but fails to meet the criteria for a specific myeloproliferative neoplasm; or presents with features that overlap two or more MPN neoplasms.""
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130142","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a 2010 inguinal lymph node biopsy diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 1 is subsequently diagnosed in 2012 with a 50% follicular, grade 3 and 50% diffuse large B-cell via a biopsy of an axillary mass?
","In 2010 a left inguinal lymph node biopsy revealed follicular lymphoma, grade 1. There were no other suspicious lymph nodes in the body.
In 2012 a biopsy of a large axillary mass revealed a a 50% follicular, grade 3 and 50% diffuse large B-cell.
According to the rules, the transformation to a B-cell is new primary. Is the mixed cell neoplasm a single primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
There are two reportable primaries for this case -- follicular lymphoma in 2010 and DLBCL in 2012.
First determine the histologies needed to to determine the number of primaries to report. We determined the histologies are follicular lymphoma, grade 1 for 2010 and DLBCL for 2012 as follows:
Per the Hematopoietic database, follicular lymphoma (all types are chronic) transforms to DLBCL (acute). Per Rule M 10 instructions, ""Abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is as a neoplasm there is a of an neoplasm after the chronic diagnosis."" Therefore, abstract the DLBCL as a second primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130140","Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood sample with an immunophenotype that is ""characteristic of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia"" reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a reportable diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia [9823/3]. The physician is using the terms ""characteristic of"" in the same manner as he/she would use the terms ""diagnostic of.""
This case fits with the usual diagnosis of CLL. The peripheral blood is diagnostic for leukemias. There was a specific leukemia noted, B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. CLL (B-cell is the phenotype) is usually diagnosed incidentally by a peripheral smear because it is asymptomatic. However, we recommend looking for further work-up, such as a bone marrow biopsy.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130139","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the original slides are reviewed at a later date and the revised diagnosis changes the histology? See Discussion.","Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 5/2010 and treated with chemotherapy. In 11/2012 a bone marrow biopsy revealed small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3].
The 2010 slides were reviewed and showed, ""a large cell lymphoid proliferation, many of the cells which appear to be prolymphocytes. There are background smaller lymphocytes that are consistent with CLL/SLL. In retrospect, the lymph node most likely represented a prolymphocytic conversion in SLL.""
The medical oncologist is calling this a recurrent lymphoma. Should the original 5/2010 diagnosis be changed to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]? Is this documented in the Heme Manual?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Change the histology of the original 2010 diagnosis to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma] based on the review of the 2010 slides. The 2010 diagnosis was revised based on the review of slides and the histology should be changed accordingly. The closest example of this is located in the SEER Manual, Changing Information on the Abstract, instruction 3, example 4.
Histology code 9670/3 [SLL] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. All diagnoses of CLL/SLL, CLL, and SLL are now coded to histology code 9823/3 [CLL/SLL].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130138","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2010 diagnosis of a preleukemic condition is subsequently diagnosed in 2012 with a specific leukemia that is not listed as a transformation? See Discussion.
","10/02/10 bone marrow biopsy showed myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassified [9989/3].
6/19/12 bone marrow biopsy showed chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3].
CMML-2 is not listed as an acute neoplasm for MDS. Is this the same disease? Per the pre-2010 rules, this would be the same disease. The current Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [9989/3] diagnosed 10/2/10 and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-2) [9945/3] diagnosed 6/19/12 per Rule M15. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primaries Calculator when rules M1-M14 do not apply.
When myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) became reportable, the rules in effect at that time resulted in MDS often being the only diagnosis reported when both MDS and a leukemia were diagnosed. Statistics for some leukemias were impacted. Now we report both the MDS and the leukemia for greater accuracy.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130137","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for follicular lymphoma, low grade? See Discussion.","Pathologists seem to be moving away from identifying follicular B-cell lymphomas as grade 1, grade 2, etc. Instead, the term follicular lymphoma, low grade is being used. Should the histology be coded as follicular lymphoma, NOS even though the Heme DB indicates this code is usually used for death certificate cases?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma, NOS].
Low grade for follicular lymphoma are not listed in the Heme DB or Manual. Because low grade can mean grade 1 or grade 2, default to follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130136","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If a neoplasm is listed under the Transformations section in the Heme DB, is this always a new primary? See Discussion.","Where are the instructions for coding transformations? When a disease is listed under the transformations, the Multiple Primaries Calculator states it is a new primary. Is this a new primary when the physician calls it a transformation?
For example, patient was diagnosed in 2000 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). A biopsy of a stomach mass on 4/26/12 was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. DLBCL is listed under the Transformations To section in the Heme DB for CLL. Is this a new primary because it is a transformation?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Transformations do not always indicate a multiple primary is to be reported. Always apply the M Rules to determine the number of primaries. Refer to Rules M8-M13 in the Heme Manual address to determine the number of reportable primaries when chronic and acute neoplasms (transformations) are indicated on a case. Do not use the MP Calculator to determine the number of primaries unless the M Rules direct you to use it.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries, chronic lymphocytic leukemia [9823/3] diagnosed in 2000, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed on 04/26/2012 per Rule M10. Abstract a new primary when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic (less aggressive) neoplasm (CLL) and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (DLBCL) more than 21 days later.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130134","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: According to the hematopoietic database, systemic mastocytosis is reportable; does that include INDOLENT systemic mastocytosis (which is not listed in the list of alternative names)?
","","For cases diagnosed 2018 and forward, indolent systemic mastocytosis is not reportable (9741/1). Smoldering systemic mastocytosis is reportable (9741/3).
","2013" "20130132","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnostic confirmation code for a death certificate only (DCO) diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Always code diagnostic confirmation to 9 [Unknown whether or not microscopically confirmed; death certificate only] for DCO cases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130131","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded, and which PH rule applies, when chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is diagnosed simultaneously by biopsies of both lymph node(s) and the bone marrow?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per Rule PH5 when CLL/SLL [9823/3] involves the bone marrow.
In the later stages of CLL/SLL, there may be involvement of bone marrow AND lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), or tissue(s). As long as the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow are involved, the primary site is bone marrow.
WHO states that the diagnostic criteria for CLL versus SLL is not clearly defined. According to WHO guidelines, it is better to code to CLL/SLL and code the primary site to bone marrow when the marrow is involved and to lymph nodes, organ, or tissue when there is no bone marrow involvement.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130129","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of composite lymphoma (follicular lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma, BCL-2 positive)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL)] per Rule PH15. Code the histology to the non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code when two or more NHLs are present in the same present in the same lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s), organ(s), or bone marrow. Both follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and SLL [9823/3] are types of NHL. Therefore, the histology is coded to 9823/3.
This composite histology represents a single primary per Rule M4. The rule states to abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130128","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and a 12/08/2011 subsequent biopsy of the left leg that confirms leukemia cutis? See Discussion.","Patient with a history of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia has been undergoing treatment with Dacogen for three years. On 12/8/11 the patient had a biopsy of the left leg that confirmed a diagnosis of leukemia cutis. How is the leukemia cutis coded?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia [9945/3], per Rule M2. Accession a single primary when there is a single histology.
This is not a new primary. Leukemia cutis is the infiltration of neoplastic leukocytes into the skin from the existing leukemia. This is an advanced phase of the leukemia and has a poor prognosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130127","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: When did smoldering myeloma become reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Smoldering multiple myeloma [9732/3] has always been a reportable neoplasm. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme, smoldering multiple myeloma is a variant of multiple myeloma in which the diagnostic requirements for multiple myeloma are met, but there is no organ damage. The patient is usually asymptomatic.
Smoldering myeloma is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for multiple myeloma [9732/3] to clarify that it is a reportable neoplasm.
Report all new diagnoses of smoldering multiple myeloma now. Registries are not required to spend time and effort to find these cases if they have not been reporting them in the past. However, report earlier earlier cases if encountered today while performing casefinding or chart review procedures.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130125","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is self-healing Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) of the skin reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a reportable primary. Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is a reportable neoplasm.
The term ""self-healing"" means that the neoplasm regressed without treatment. This is a known phenomenon.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130124","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Rosai-Dorfman's syndrome (histiocytosis) a reportable malignant condition?","","Rosai-Dorfman disease is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare non-neoplastic disease. This disease can mimic lymphoma and extranodal involvement is frequent.","2013" "20130123","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic variant involving the left maxillary vestibule and entire left maxilla? See Discussion.
","The clinical history indicates a destructive, quickly growing intra-oral lesion in the left soft tissue vestibule and the entire left maxilla.
Pathology report final diagnosis: Oral cavity, left maxilla, incisional biopsy: Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, diffuse large B-cell type, immunoblastic variant.
","Code the primary site to C068 [overlapping lesion of the mouth] per Rule PH24. Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.
This lesion overlaps the left soft tissue of the maxilla (the maxillary gingiva) [C030] and the left vestibule of the mouth [C061]. There is no documentation indicating in which specific site the lesion arose. The maxilla is the upper jawbone. The soft tissue that overlies the maxilla is a part of the oral cavity. It is reasonable to interpret the documentation such that the tumor in the maxilla is an extension of the overlapping oral mucosa tumor.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130122","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when an excisional biopsy of a chest wall nodule shows diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%) and follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%)? See Discussion.","The patient presented with a right chest wall nodule. The PET scan showed widespread disease: subcutaneous nodule/mass in the left scalp and right chest wall; large right paraspinal mass; soft tissue density likely a second early paraspinal mass at the right costovertebral junction; right paravertebral mass; and abnormal bony foci in the right humeral head, right iliac crest, right acetabulum and right femur. The physical exam showed 2 cm left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and a firm 3 cm mass in the right chest wall. Lungs were clear. Abdomen showed no masses or ascites, and no palpable hepatosplenomegaly.
Chest wall nodule excisional biopsy pathology: Lymph node and adjacent soft tissue: Malignant lymphoma with components: 1. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%). 2. Follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%). Pathology report note states the diffuse large cell lymphoma is probably arising from the follicular center cell lymphoma.
Should this be a single primary? There is no mention of cutaneous lymphoma.
","Accession a single primary per Rule M4. Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] per Rule PH11.
Per Rule M4, accession a single primary when two or more non-Hodgkin lymphomas are present in the same lymph node or organ.
Per Rule PH11 code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130121","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""early essential thrombocythemia"" reportable? See Discussion.","The bone marrow biopsy diagnosis was, ""Combined bone marrow morphologic, flow cytometric, immunohistochemical, molecular and cytogenetic findings are most consistent with early or evolving essential thrombocythemia with low level JAK2 V617F mutation documented on molecular testing."" The physician is calling this a benign process. Is this reportable as essential thrombocythemia? Are the terms early or evolving ignored? Does the presence of a JAK2 mutation make this reportable? Without JAK2 testing is this case reportable?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Yes, this is a reportable case. The histology is coded to 9962/3 [essential thrombocythemia]. The positive JAK2 mutation testing and bone marrow biopsy results taken together support the diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia in this case.
In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB, it indicates that only 50-60 percent of patients with essential thrombocythemia will have a positive JAK2 mutation. A diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia can still be made in the absence of a JAK2 mutation. For example, if the bone marrow biopsy final diagnosis or a physician's clinical diagnosis is essential thrombocythemia, despite a negative JAK2 mutation test, the neoplasm is still reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130120","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site for a Langerhans cell Sarcoma of the lower extremity?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
If the bone is involved, code the primary site to bone. Langerhans more commonly starts in the bone and extends to the soft tissue.
If bone is not involved, code primary site to C492, Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of lower limb and hip.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130119","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would this case be reportable? Patient with a myelodysplastic syndrome secondary to a copper deficiency.","","Myelodysplastic syndrome is a reportable disease. Document in the text that the MDS was due to a copper deficiency.","2013" "20130118","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis with extensive bony metastatic disease and lymphadenopathy? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with LCH on a biopsy of the right femur. Imaging showed extensive bony metastatic disease, extensive infiltrative perinephritis, encasement of both kidneys, renal hilar, retroperitoneal and periaortic lymphadenopathy. The right femur biopsy pathology report did not state this was metastatic.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C419 [bone, NOS] per Rule PH30.
This patient has widely metastatic disease. Per Rule PH30, one needs to reference the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology for this case. Per the Abstractor Notes section, Langerhans cell histiocytosis arises in the bone and many times can involve multiple bones, along with other organs and lymph nodes. Although the right femur was biopsied, this does not prove that the primary site is the femur [C402] because the patient has what was described as extensive bony metastatic disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130116","Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and primary site coded if a pleurocentesis is compatible with plasmablastic plasmacytoma/lymphoma when no further information is available?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma] and the primary site to C809 [unknown] per Rule PH27.
Code the histology specified when the only histology for the case is preceded by ambiguous terminology. For this case, code the histology to plasmablastic lymphoma because it is the only histology mentioned in the diagnosis.
Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section for plasmablastic lymphoma, most patients present with Stage III-IV disease. The positive pleural fluid is likely due to advanced disease. In the absence of any other information for this case, Rule PH27 applies, ""Code primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement.""
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130115","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when the biopsy final diagnosis is ""low grade B-cell lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)"" and the hematologist clinically diagnoses this as splenic marginal zone lymphoma? See Discussion.","This patient has massive splenomegaly. The biopsy final diagnosis was ""low grade B lymphoma of unclear subtype (splenic marginal zone lymphoma?)."" The pathologist's comment states, ""Because of the clinical context (lymphocytosis and splenomegaly) a splenic marginal zone lymphoma is a possibility."" There are no other histologic diagnoses. All the flow cytometry reports are as unclear as the biopsy.
The hematologist, after seeing the pathology report, states, ""The bone marrow biopsy shows a significant infiltration by mature lymphocytes; their markers strongly suggest a marginal zone lymphoma, probably of splenic origin The final diagnosis is a splenic marginal zone lymphoma.""
Should the clinical diagnosis of splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3] be coded when a clinical diagnosis is not listed as a definitive diagnostic method for this neoplasm? Or should the histology be coded as low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]? The clinicians will expect the case to be coded as a splenic marginal zone lymphoma when there's no doubt about the diagnosis.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9689/3 [splenic marginal zone lymphoma] per Rule PH29 and Case Reportability Instruction #6 in the Heme Manual. Case Reportability Instruction #6 indicates, ""Report the case when there is a (physician's statement) of reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.""
The pathology gave an NOS diagnosis, low grade B-cell lymphoma [9591/3]. The physician clinically stated this was a splenic marginal zone lymphoma [9689/3]. Rule PH 29 states to code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific histology AND one specific histology AND the Heme DB MP Calculator indicates they are the same primary. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, these two histologies indicate the same primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130114","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the bone marrow biopsy shows acute myeloid leukemia, but the physician states this is therapy-related AML secondary to prior radiation treatment? See Discussion.","Physician states this patient has radiation therapy-related AML due to radiation received as treatment for a prior prostate cancer. The bone marrow and other immunophenotyping do not state this is therapy-related AML. Should the histology be coded AML, NOS [9861/3] or therapy-related AML [9920/3]?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, NOS [9920/3] when the physician states this is a therapy-related AML.
The therapy-related diagnosis may be either clinically or pathologically stated to code the histology to 9920/3. In this case, the physician is aware of the previous chemotherapy, hormone therapy or radiation and adds that knowledge to the histologic findings of AML. The pathology report did not include this clinical, historical information as part of the final diagnosis. However, one can code therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia because clinically it was stated.
We recommend that you clearly document in the abstract that you are coding a clinical histology.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130113","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient diagnosed and treated for multiple myeloma is subsequently diagnosed with multiple large plasmacytomas involving the scalp and thorax? See Discussion
","The patient was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, underwent treatment and subsequently was in remission. The patient later presented with lesions on the scalp and thorax lesions. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for the scalp lesion was multiple myeloma with plasmablastic transformation (high grade). The physician states this is an aggressive, recurrent multiple myeloma with multiple large plasmacytomas involving the scalp and thorax.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, multiple myeloma [9732/3] per Rule M2.
The multiple myeloma is in an advanced stage when plasma cells are being deposited on the scalp and thorax. Clinically, those plasma cells are rightly called plasmacytomas by the physician. However, the patient has a late-stage multiple myeloma causing the plasma cells/plasmacytomas. Note that under the myeloma Recurrence and Metastases section of the Heme DB it indicates that extramedullary involvement (e.g., the scalp and thorax involvement) usually indicates advanced disease. Therefore, this scenario represents a case of a single histology that is accessioned as a single primary per Rule M2.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130112","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) diagnosed on an inguinal lymph node biopsy with CT scan evidence of lymphadenopathy in the chest, abdomen and pelvis if the bone marrow is also involved?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS [C778] per Rule PH21 when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by the ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated
In the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for PTLD it states PTLD commonly involves lymph nodes, GI tract, lungs and the liver. This patient has extensive lymph node involvement. Rule PH26 states to code the primary site to the bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved; however, that does not apply in this case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130111","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2008 diagnosis of extralymphatic follicular lymphoma in the breast is subsequently diagnosed in 2011 with ocular follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.","The patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the breast in 2008. Per notes, there was no evidence of disease again until 2011 when the patient presented with ocular lymphoma. The physician stated this was part of the same disease process as the prior breast diagnosis. The bone marrow was not involved in either case.
Is this a single primary (recurrence) of follicular lymphoma? Or are these multiple primaries because they arise in different extralymphatic sites?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, follicular lymphoma [9690/3] of the breast diagnosed in 2008 per Rule M2.
Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. This is a recurrence of the patient's 2008 follicular lymphoma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130110","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of ""coagulable state"" reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The term ""coagulable state"" is not reportable. This is not a a neoplasm. The term means capable of coagulating or capable of becoming thick. There are neoplasms, such as polycythemia vera, in which the blood becomes thick; however, you must have an actual reportable diagnosis in order to accession the case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130109","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2004 diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia is followed by a 2013 diagnosis of myeloid sarcoma? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed in 2004 with acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] and treated with chemotherapy and transplant. Now the patient has a biopsy of an umbilical mass that is positive for myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) [9930/3].
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] diagnosed in 2004 per Rule M3.
When there is a myeloid sarcoma diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage, it is a single primary. The myeloid sarcoma is actually caused by the AML progressing. The myeloid cells in the bone marrow or blood literally ""seep out"" and implant in the tissue.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130107","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a diagnosis of polycythemia vera with myeloproliferative syndrome?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9950/3 [polycythemia vera], the more specific histology, per Rule PH29. Myeloproliferative syndrome is a non-specific (NOS) histology and polycythemia vera is a specific type of myeloproliferative disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130106","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a 2009 diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type is treated and subsequently presents in 2010 with the same diagnosis? See Discussion.","2009 diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type involved the superior mediastinal nodes, AP window nodes, bilateral axillary nodes and pulmonary nodules. The patient received chemotherapy and went into remission.
Patient presents in 2010 with Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosing type in the superior mediastinum.
Does timing play any part in determining if this reported as one or two primaries? There is no timing rule in the Heme Manual.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type [9663/3] diagnosed in 2009 per Rule M2.
Accession a single primary when there is a single histology. Note 2 for Rule M2 indicates timing is not relevant. This is disease progression or recurrence and not a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130105","Primary Site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma when a biopsy of the paraspinal muscle and epidural tissue is positive, but there is no indication of lymph node involvement in the chart?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to soft tissue of the back, NOS [C496] per Rule PH24 and the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB for B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma.
Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. The lesion is described as epidural (tissue surrounding the dura) and involving paraspinal muscle, NOS. Both are connective or other soft tissues of the trunk, NOS [C496].
B-cell lymphoma intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma is a synonym for DLBCL 9680/3. When there is no primary site listed in the Heme DB, go to the Abstractor Notes. In the Abstractor Notes section it states that patients present with lymphadenopathy OR mass lesions in extranodal sites.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130104","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of intrasinusoidal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving lymph nodes, the liver and the bone marrow? See Discussion.","Intrasinusoidal DLBCL was diagnosed by liver biopsy. The bone marrow was involved based on abnormal cytogenetic findings. Per a physician's note, a PTA CT Abd/Pelvis showed hepatosplenomegaly and mild periportal/peripancreatic lymphadenopathy. A GI physician stated the lymphoma involves the veins of the liver.
Should the primary site be coded to the liver [C220] and the histology to 9680/3 [DLBCL]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to the intra-abdominal lymph nodes [C772] per Rule PH20.
Code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region as defined by the ICD-O-3 are involved. Periportal and peripancreatic nodes are both intra-abdominal region nodes.
Based on the information provided, there is involvement of lymph nodes, the liver, spleen and bone marrow, but no other documentation of the primary site. Given that a primary lymphoma of the liver is very rare; it is unlikely that this lymphoma arose from the liver. Involvement of the liver and spleen is very common for patients with lymphoma. The involvement of the liver, spleen and bone marrow is coded in the CS fields as Stage IV involvement.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130103","First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why isn't darbepoietin coded as treatment for hematopoietic diseases?","","Darbepoietin is a synthetic form of erythropoietin. It stimulates erythropoiesis (increases red blood cell levels) and is used to treat anemia, commonly associated with chronic renal failure and cancer chemotherapy.
Darbepoietin is a support medication; it does not treat cancer. It is used to treat anemia caused by cancer directed chemotherapy treatments. It is not indicated for patients with myeloid cancers; cancers that originate in the bone marrow like leukemia.
Darbopoietin is an ancillary drug and is not coded as treatment.
","2013" "20130102","Histology--Heme & Lymph Neoplasms: Is follicular lymphoma, high grade synonymous with grade 3 lymphoma [9698/3] or is the ""high grade"" ignored and the histology coded to follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690]?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3].
Follicular lymphoma, high grade is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for Follicular lymphoma, grade 3.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130101","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma reportable? See Discussion.","The pathology report states, ""plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma."" The patient then died of a heart attack and no further information is available. If this is reportable, what histology code applies?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is not reportable. Neither plasma cell dyscrasia nor MGUS are reportable. Smoldering myeloma was given as a possible diagnosis, but never confirmed.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130100","Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are there and how should I code the primary site(s)? See discussion.
","Patient had a hemicolectomy and a salpingo-oophorectomy and was found to have diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the colon (10 cm cecal mass), 3/16 regional lymph nodes involved with lymphoma. Fallopian tube showed involvement with diffuse large B Cell lymphoma.
Multiple primaries - Colon and fallopian tube?
One primary - Colon? Stage IV, or lymphoma from an unknown primary? Note: There were no other lymph nodes involved.
","Use Rule M2. Abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.
When you have questions about how to code the primary site, start with the abstractor notes. If the answer isn't found there go to Module 7 (a specific module to help code primary site for lymphomas).
The abstractor notes for DLBCL in this case do not provide information you can use for this case. Go to Module 7 in the PH rules.
Use Rule PH25 Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present in an organ and that organ’s regional lymph nodes. Code the primary site to colon (organ and regional lymph nodes involved). The fallopian tube is secondary involvement. As is common with lymphomas, there can be more than one organ involved. You can differentiate the primary site from the secondary site(s) because of the large colon mass with regional lymph node involvement.
","2013" "20130098","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Why did the hematopoietic histology rule change regarding the coding of small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SLL/CLL) from the lymphoma code (9670/3) to leukemia (9823/3) when both tissue and bone marrow are involved? See Discussion.","The answer in SINQ 20110035 that instructs us to code the primary site to bone marrow [C421] is the opposite of what has been coded for years. After all the years of coding SLL/CLL as a lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow/blood are involved, why has the change to coding this to the leukemia code (9823/3) been made?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
There has been a change in coding practice based on a change in clinical classification of leukemia/lymphomas. In the past, we did, indeed, default to lymphoma when both tissue and bone marrow were involved. The problem was that when only bone marrow was involved, the case was coded to leukemia with a primary site of bone marrow. When lymphoma symptoms developed later, there was a lot of inconsistency in how registries handled these cases. Some coded a new primary ""lymphoma;"" while others ignored the lymphoma calling it progression.
The clinical world, including the hematopoietic experts in the World Health Organization and the Inter-Lymph Consortium, agreed that for certain neoplasms (CLL/SLL being one of them) it was not useful or practical to code the leukemia and lymphoma separately OR to capture only one of the neoplasms (because these neoplasms almost always progress to lymphoma); so new codes for the leukemia/lymphoma were developed. According to the experts, 9823/3 most accurately portrays the neoplastic process for the neoplasms assigned to a lymphoma/leukemia code.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130097","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are either heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia that becomes refractory thrombocytopenia reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is not reportable.
If the diagnosis is changed to refractory thrombocytopenia, then this case is reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130096","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a mantle cell lymphoma found in the sigmoid colon on colonoscopy with biopsy?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to the sigmoid colon [C187] per Rule PH24. Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. Based on the information provided, the lymphoma is present only in the sigmoid colon.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130095","Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS? See Discussion.","The Heme DB indicates histology code 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] is the current histology code to use for the now obsolete term of acute lymphoblastic leukemia [9835/3]. The Heme DB entry for histology code 9835/3 states to ""Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9."" The Heme DB entry for the current histology code, 9811/3, states to code the grade to 6 [B-cell]. Should grade be coded to 6 [B-cell] for all cases coded to histology code 9811/3?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the grade to 6 [B-cell] for all cases of 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma] per Rule G3 in the Heme Manual.
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, NOS [9835/3] is an obsolete code and cannot be used for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. The Heme DB indicates the correct histology code is 9811/3 and grade 6 [B-cell] for cases diagnosed 2010 and later.
For cases of acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, NOS [9835/3] diagnosed prior to 2010, use the pathology report information to code the grade. Code the grade as 9 [unknown] if the pathology report does not specify the grade.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130094","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.
On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.
Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.
","Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.
The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.
","2013" "20130093","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What histology code is used for an adenocarcinoma in situ/bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) of the lung? See Discussion.","Classification of lung malignancies has undergone a change. The bronchioloalveolar carcinoma histology is being replaced by adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, using an evaluation of lepidic growth pattern in the tumor.
The final diagnosis is ""adenocarcinoma in situ/BAC"" and the comment states, ""The findings in the current biopsy are most compatible with low grade malignant lesions which, in this sample, shows features of adenocarcinoma in situ (former bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma), given the proliferation of pneumocytes is limited to the alveolar lining with no evidence of invasion. However, classification of the lesion depends, per reference guidelines (Travis et al. J THOR ONCOL 2011 6,(2):244-275), on its size and its overall histologic features, to rule out the presence of an invasive component and therefore can only be performed upon examination of it in its entirety, upon resection."" The radiation oncologist staged this T1N0M0, stage 1 BAC.
","Code the histology to 8140/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ, NOS].
The comment for this case is consistent with information from the CAP protocol, which says, ""The diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma requires exclusion of stromal, vascular, and pleural invasiona requirement that demands the tumor be evaluated histologically in its entirety. It is therefore recommended that a definitive diagnosis of bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma not be made on specimens in which the tumor is incompletely represented.""
This tumor was not completely resected. Therefore, code to adenocarcinoma in situ based on the information provided.
","2013" "20130092","Reportability--Head & Neck: What are the correct site and histology codes if a glomus tympanicum tumor of the middle ear is reportable?
","","Glomus tympanicum tumors of the middle ear are not reportable. The 2005 WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors classified these tumors as a borderline [/1] behavior and recorded them in the ICD-O-3 with histology code 8690 [glomus jugulare tumor, NOS].
According to WHO, ""the distinction between jugular and tympanic paragangliomas can easily be made in the patient by modern imaging methods ... the jugular neoplasm is identified as arising from the jugular bulb region ... while the tympanic neoplasm is confined to the middle ear."" Benign and borderline neoplasms of the middle ear [C301] are not reportable. The middle ear is not a reportable CNS site for benign and borderline tumors.
","2013" "20130091","Treatment, NOS--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Which guidelines are used to code treatment for hematopoietic diseases diagnosed prior to 2010?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later, use the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual for instructions on coding aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field ""Other Treatment.""
For cases diagnosed 5/1/2002 12/31/2009, use the instructions in the SEER Manual and the instructions in ""Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases"" to code aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field ""Other Treatment.""
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 04/30/2002 use the instructions in the SEER Manual for collection of aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field ""Other Treatment.""
Prior to 1/1/2001, these treatment modalities were not collected.
","2013" "20130090","MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion.","Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.
The pathology report from the colon resection showed:
Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.
Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199?
","This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.
For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS].
","2013" "20130089","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded when a pre-treatment core biopsy showed ductal carcinoma, but the mastectomy specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed lobular carcinoma? See Discussion.","11/06/2012 Ultrasound-guided biopsy of the left breast and left axilla showed invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient underwent 6 months of chemotherapy. In 05/2013 the patient underwent a mastectomy that showed invasive lobular cancer, pleomorphic type, with 11 axillary lymph nodes negative.","The histology is coded to lobular carcinoma, NOS [8520/3] because the mastectomy (the most representative specimen) showed only lobular carcinoma.
The MP/H Rules state to code the histology from the most representative tumor specimen examined. Although this patient underwent neoadjuvant treatment, there is no indication that the ultrasound-guided biopsy contained more tumor than the mastectomy. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen and should be used to code the histology.
","2013" "20130088","Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Grade be coded to 5 [T-cell] or 9 [cell type not determined, not stated, not applicable] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS [9714/3]? See Discussion.","
Under the Grade section in the Heme DB for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NOS it indicates the following:
""Grade - Code grade specified by pathologist. If no grade specified, code 9.""
There is no reference in the Grade section that we should look at the Abstractor Notes or a specific Module in the Heme DB for additional information. However, in the Abstractor Notes section it states, ""Grade is T-cell (5) unless pathologist specifically designates as a B-cell (see G2 rule)."" These two statements are conflicting. Which is the correct grade?
","Assign code 5 [T-cell] for anaplastic large cell lymphoma [9714/3] unless the pathologist specifies that the histology is a B-cell disease process. See Grade rule G2, Note 2.
In the Heme DB, there is a default value in the Grade field for histologies that do not have a grade specified. However, this particular histology does not default to code 9. There was an error in the Grade section of the 2010 and 2012 versions of Heme DB that has now been corrected in the latest release.
","2013" "20130086","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed in 2008 with chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic phase and is subsequently diagnosed with both accelerated phase (2010) and blast crisis of CML (2012)? See Discussion.","Patient diagnosed in 1/2008 with CML, Chronic phase and had a complete remission following treatment.
In 3/2010 the patient was diagnosed with CML, Accelerated phase and again had a complete remission following treatment.
In 02/2012 the patient was diagnosed with CML, Blast crisis.
How do chronic and acute neoplasms (Rules M8 - M13) relate to histologies that are stated to have Chronic, Accelerated and Blast phases per the Heme DB? These histologies don't change, does this mean Rules M8 - M13 do not apply because there isn't a change in histology? How many primaries should be accessioned in this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as a single primary, chronic myeloid leukemia, NOS [9863/3] diagnosed 01/2008 per Rule M2. The patient was diagnosed with CML, NOS [9863/3] in 2008 and again in 2010 and 2012. Abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
CML, Chronic phase; CML, Accelerated phase; and CML, Blast phase (Blast crisis) are listed under the Alternate Names section for CML, NOS in the Heme DB.
Not all histologies have transformations. If a transformation is not listed in the Heme DB, Rules M8 - M13 do not apply.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130085","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient was treated in 1999 with Vidaza for myelodysplastic syndrome and had a recent biopsy that demonstrated a transformation to acute myeloid leukemia?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3].
MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.
Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130084","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on a 3/16/12 lymph node biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma which was followed on 4/18/12 with bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.","The patient has extensive right-sided cervical, supraclavicular, hilar, mediastinal and gastrohepatic adenopathy. A cervical node biopsy on 3/16/2012 showed DLBCL. On 04/18/2012 a bone marrow biopsy showed follicular lymphoma. The patient was started on CHOP/Rituxan after the bone marrow biopsy.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M12. Abstract the acute neoplasm (DLBCL) when a patient is originally diagnosed with an acute neoplasm and the neoplasm reverts to the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND the patient has not been treated for the acute neoplasm.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130083","Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if an FNA reveals high grade B-cell lymphoma, compatible with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the treating physician states this is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.","The FNA showed high grade B-cell lymphoma, morphologically compatible with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Special studies state: Tumor cells are positive for Vimentin, CD45, and CD20, focally weakly positive for CD43; negative for Myeloperoxidase, CD99, AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, S100, CD3, cyclin D1, CD34, CD5 and TTF1. The cellular findings and immunophenotype are compatible with large B-cell lymphoma.
The treating physician refers to this disease process and is treating the patient for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Should the histology be coded as B-cell lymphoma, NOS (9591/3) because both the FNA and the immunophenotyping use ambiguous terminology? Does the physician reference to the disease process as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Stage II-AE impact the histology used?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] because the physician states this is a DLBCL and is treating the patient accordingly. Although the pathology report was only compatible with DLBCL, there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis that confirmed a diagnosis of DLBCL. In addition, the patient was treated for DLBCL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130082","Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded when a skin of lip pathology report demonstrates neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate with small B cells, compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia? See Discussion.","Ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology. What is the correct histology for this case? There was no other clinical statement from the physician regarding the histology following the release of the pathology report diagnosis.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma]. This primary was accessioned based on reportable ambiguous terminology. The surgical pathology report was compatible with B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, ""compatible with"" is a reportable ambiguous term. A neoplastic lymphoid infiltrate is not a reportable diagnosis. Therefore, a diagnosis compatible with CLL/SLL is coded as histology code 9823/3.
The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130081","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is clinically stated to have Stage III follicular lymphoma following a diagnosis suspicious for B-cell lymphoma and is subsequently diagnosed with large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.","01/27/2012 R neck mass FNA: Suspicious for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
02/17/2012 Cervical node bx: In situ involvement by follicular-like B-cells of uncertain significance +CD10. Two other cervical biopsies show infarcted, extensively necrotic lymphoid tissue highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma.
03/20/2012 Bone marrow: Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with plasmacytic differential.
04/18/2012 Medical Oncology treats patient for Stage III follicular lymphoma.
10/16/2012 Cervical LN core bx: CD10+ large B-cell lymphoma.
Should Rule M4 (single primary) and Module 6, Rule PH11 apply to this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] diagnosed 02/17/2012 and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed 10/16/2012 per Rule M10. This patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (DLBCL).
The follicular lymphoma was initially diagnosed on 02/17/2012. The cervical node biopsies were ""highly suspicious for B-cell lymphoma"" [9591/3]. While ""suspicious"" is a reportable ambiguous term used to accession cases, suspicious cytologies are not SEER reportable and, therefore, the diagnosis date cannot be 01/27/2012. The histology of the first primary would be updated to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma] based on the Medical Oncology note on 04/18/2012 that confirmed the histology was follicular lymphoma and the patient was being treated for such.
The diagnosis of DLBCL was made 8 months later. Rule M4 cannot apply to this case because the follicular lymphoma and DLBCL were not diagnosed simultaneously. Rule M4 only applies when the two non-Hodgkin lymphomas are diagnosed simultaneously AND in the same location.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130080","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the primary site and histology coded when a right neck mass and spinal mass both show B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma? See Discussion.","2/5/11 Right neck swelling. Biopsy of mass B-cell lymphoma, favor Burkitt lymphoma.
7/5/11 Hemi-laminectomy, L2-L5 spinal mass: Malignant lymphoma, B-cell phenotype, favor Burkitt lymphoma.
Should the primary site be C779? Is the correct histology Burkitt lymphoma [9687/3] or malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell [9680/3]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes] per Rule PH22 and the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
Code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] when lymphoma is present in an organ and lymph nodes that are not regional for that organ and the origin cannot be determined even after consulting the physician. The patient has involvement of a lumbar spine mass and cervical lymph nodes. Cervical lymph nodes are not regional to the lumbar area of the spine.
Do not use ambiguous terminology to code histology for hematopoietic neoplasms. ""Favor"" is ambiguous terminology. Therefore, the histology must be coded to B-cell lymphoma and not to diagnosis which is ""favored"" (Burkitt lymphoma). Remember that ambiguous terminology is only used to determine case reportability, not to code histology for hematopoietic neoplasms.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130079","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia reportable and synonymous with multiple myeloma? See Discussion.
","Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate: Plasma cell dyscrasia with IgG kappa expression with FISH (+) for the following abnormalities: 3 copies of 1q21 (25/30 plasma cells) and an extra CCND1 signal (25/34 plasma cells) which is indicative of the presence of other chromosome 11 abnormalities possibly trisomy 11, a change known to occur in plasma cell neoplasms. Flow cytometry: A monoclonal plasma cell population is present, co-expressing cIgG, cKappa, CD56, & CD117 (up to 14% of analyzed cells).
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Plasma cell dyscrasia and multiple myeloma are not synonymous terms. Plasma cell dyscrasia is not listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for plasma cell myeloma (multiple myeloma). Plasma cell dyscrasia is listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB for MGUS [9765/1], which is not a reportable disease.
Plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) is not reportable. PCD is a diverse group of neoplastic diseases that produces a serum M component (monoclonal immunoglobulin).
Usually these patients have a plasma cell morphology such as multiple myeloma or heavy chain disease. However, the registrar cannot diagnose multiple myeloma or heavy chain disease (or any other plasma cell neoplasm). There must be a physician statement and/or a positive biopsy to confirm a reportable diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130078","Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of ""appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder"" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
","","Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
","2013" "20130077","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasm: What is the histology code if a myeloproliferative disorder is reportable should a physician suspect this diagnosis and treats the patient? See Discussion.","Physician suspects patient has a myeloproliferative disorder and treats her with a phlebotomy and Hydrea. Patient receives Hydrea during an inpatient stay, but does not see the Heme/Onc again. The patient is subsequently only seen by a Palliative Medicine physician who also states she has an underlying myeloproliferative disorder. The patient died while an inpatient.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The term is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4). Also, the patient was treated for a myeloproliferative disorder, making this a reportable clinical diagnosis per the SEER Manual (Reportability, Pg 4, Exception 1).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130075","Reportability/Ambiguous terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is 'suspicious for an evolving acute leukemia' reportable?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and later
Please see the Hematopoietic database, https://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph/
","2013" "20130073","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Rosai-Dorfman disease a neoplastic reportable disease process if it occurs in the brain? See Discussion.
","The pathology report diagnosis is: Cranium, right temporal area, resection of intradural, extra-axial mass: Severe acute and chronic inflammation, histiocytic reaction, and proliferative fibrosis. See comment.
Comment: Among potential alternative considerations are an infectious process, or non-infectious inflammatory CNS lesions such as inflammatory pseudotumor, Rosai-Dorfman disease, plasma cell granuloma, idiopathic hypertrophic pachymeningitis, and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor.
The clinicians discuss this and review other chart information and conclude the patient has a clinical diagnosis of Rosai-Dorfman disease.
This is a rare disorder characterized by proliferation of histiocytes.
","This case is not reportable. Rosai-Dorfman disease is not listed in the ICD-O-3. To be reportable, a neoplasm must be listed in the ICD-O-3 and originate in a reportable brain/CNS site.
","2013" "20130072","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when the right lower lobe lung has two adenocarcinomas, both with lepidic pattern, if the tumor board staged these tumors as separate primaries? See Discussion.
","Per pathology report
The tumor board has staged this as two separate primaries and is treating it as such. They are not considering the second focus metastatic even though it is the same histology. Lepidic is not in the ICD-O-3. Is lepidic a new term for histology?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the right lower lobe lung. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Lung MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Step 2: Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule M12. Accession a single primary when the patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.
Keep in mind that physicians follow different ""rules"" to determine the number of primaries. Even though the physicians consider this case to represent two primaries, the MP/H rules instruct you to accession one primary.
We have received quite a few questions about the term lepidic. Below is the general definition of lepidic that will be added to the next MP/H revision.
""Lepidic"" is a growth pattern meaning that tumor cells are growing along the alveolar septa. It is characteristic of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), but not diagnostic of it. The diagnosis of BAC also requires no stromal, vascular, or pleural invasion. Lepidic growth may be seen in other adenocarcinomas, including metastases to lung from other sites. It is not a type/subtype of adenocarcinoma. For lepidic lung neoplasms, code the histology indicated, for example BAC.
","2013" "20130070","Reportability--Is ""intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with low grade dysplasia"" (also called IPMN adenoma) reportable? See Discussion.
","According to the ICD-O-3, the histology for IPMN adenoma is 8453/0 is non-reportable. However, per SINQ 20021099, this is reportable.
","Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas with low grade dysplasia, also referred to as IPMN adenoma, is not reportable.
IPMN of the pancreas is reportable when stated as ""IPMN with high-grade dysplasia,"" or ""IPMN with an associated invasive carcinoma,"" or ""IPMN with an associated in situ carcinoma.""
The case in SINQ 20021099 is stated to have ""multifocal high grade dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ)"" and is reportable because there is an explicit statement of carcinoma in situ, not because of the reference to the presence of high grade dysplasia. It is coded 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
","2013" "20130069","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.","The Heme DB indicates myeloproliferative neoplasm is reportable, but does not indicate whether chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm is. Does the word ""chronic"" make this non-reportable?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm is reportable. The preferred term is myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable (MPN). Chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm is listed in the Heme DB under the Alternate Names section for this neoplasm.
The term chronic does not affect the reportability of this neoplasm. The newer terms are myeloproliferative neoplasm or myeloproliferative disorder and chronic is not used in most diagnoses.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130068","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is polycythemia, NOS reportable? See Discussion.","The physician states the patient has polycythemia. There is no confirmation of primary polycythemia nor is there mention of polycythemia vera. JAK2 was negative.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable. Polycythemia, NOS is not a synonym for polycythemia vera and, therefore, is not reportable. To be reportable the diagnosis must be polycythemia vera, or one of the other terms listed in the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB.
Polycythemia (also known as erythrocytosis) is a disease state in which the proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells increases. Blood volume proportions can be measured as a hematocrit level. It can be due to an increase in the mass of red blood cells (""absolute polycythemia""); or to a decrease in the volume of plasma (""relative polycythemia"").
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130067","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a pathology report final diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (50%) and follicular lymphoma, 3A (50%)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule PH11.
Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular lymphoma, grade 3 in this case) are present in the same anatomic location. DLBCL is coded because it is the more aggressive histology.
NOTE: This answer assumes these two histologies are present simultaneously in the same anatomic location. Per Rule M4, this is a single primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130066","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed in 2003 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on an inguinal lymph node biopsy followed by a 2012 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on a cervical lymph node biopsy? See Discussion.
","The only documentation in the record is that there is a history of DLBCL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2003 per Rule M2. Abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Per Rule M2, Note 2, a recurrence of the same histology is always a single primary (timing is not relevant).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130065","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the higher histology code associated with grade 1 follicular lymphoma [9695/3] be used rather than grade 2 follicular lymphoma [9691/3] in cases of follicular lymphoma grade 1-2?","","Code histology to 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2], histology. For follicular lymphoma, when there is a grade such as 1-2 indicated, take the histology associated with the higher grade disease process, even though the lower grade histology code is higher.","2013" "20130064","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are hematopoietic primaries coded to C421 [bone marrow] or C420 [blood]?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Refer to the Hematopoietic Database and Manual to determine the primary site.
Leukemias are coded to C421 [bone marrow]. The ONLY neoplasm that is coded to C420 [blood] is Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia [9761/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130062","Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the flow cytometry on the peripheral blood or the date of the bone marrow biopsy for a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/low grade B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.","Is a flow cytometry on peripheral blood alone diagnostic of a hematopoietic malignancy (CLL)? If not, when the diagnosis is verified by a subsequent histologic diagnosis (bone marrow biopsy) would the diagnosis date be the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry or the date of the bone marrow biopsy? The Class of Case depends on this diagnosis date.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the diagnosis date to the date of the peripheral blood flow cytometry because this is a procedure used to diagnose CLL. Per both the Abstractor Notes and the Definitive Diagnostic Methods sections in the Heme DB, CLL is diagnosed by flow cytometry (immunophenotyping).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130061","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for ""post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma)""?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule PH1. Code the histology as 9680/3 [DLBCL], the histology of the accompanying lymphoma, when the diagnosis is PTLD and any B-cell lymphoma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130060","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a diagnosis of bilateral extranodal orbital lymphoma when the same histology is present in both orbits?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary lymphoma of bilateral orbits per Rule M2. Abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Both orbits showed the same histology. Note 1 for Rule M2 states bilateral involvement of lymph nodes and/or organs is a single primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130059","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded if a patient with a history of chemotherapy treated ""groin"" lymphoma, subsequently has bone biopsies that demonstrate diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.
","3/2012: Patient states he has a past history of lymphoma of the ""groin."" A bone biopsy of the right tibia done at this facility showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. There was no palpable lymphadenopathy on 03/2012. There is no other information available regarding the initial diagnosis except that the patient was treated with only chemotherapy.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C774 [inguinal lymph nodes] per Rule PH18. Code the primary site to inguinal lymph nodes [C774] when the site of lymphoma is described only as an inguinal mass. Groin lymph nodes are inguinal lymph nodes.
The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed by right tibia biopsy is not a new primary per rule M7 because the histology of the history only case would be coded as 9590/3 [lymphoma, NOS]. No more specific histology is known for the initial diagnosis. Accession a single primary when a more specific histology [DLBCL] is diagnosed after the NOS ONLY histology when the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator confirms the NOS and the more specific histology are the same primary. The right tibial involvement is not used to code the primary site because the patient had chemotherapy for this groin lymphoma prior to diagnosis of DLBCL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx..
","2013" "20130058","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is EBV-positive hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) reportable when diagnosed in a 5 year old child and resulted in death in less than two months?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is not a reportable disease because it is not listed in the Heme DB.
Per our expert pathologist consultant, ""HLH is a lymphocyte driven hemophagocytic syndrome which may be either genetically based or caused by over-activated lymphoid cells, often in response to a viral infection. It is an abnormal immune response and is not considered a malignant disease, and is, therefore, not reportable. It is not synonymous with EBV-positive T-cell lymphoproliferative disease of childhood (9724/3).""
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130057","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if the bone marrow biopsy favors lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma and the physician states the diagnosis is lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma-Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia? See Discussion.","Bone marrow biopsy: Focal bone marrow involvement with B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Comment: This patient has 2 monoclonal proteins in serum, IgM kappa and IgG kappa clones. The marrow does have focal involvement with a small cell lymphoproliferative disorder. A lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma is favored.
Flow Cytometry: Bone marrow reveals a low level, kappa-bearing-B-lymphoproliferative population that has an immunophenotype compatible with mantle cell lymphoma or related small, mature non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder.
Physician statement: lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma-Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia.
Per the Heme DB, the criteria to diagnosis WM is the serum paraprotein IgM. This patient's IgM was 6020 mg/dL. It was described as elevated per the physician. The physician also states the patient's IgG is elevated. According to the Heme DB, when both IgG and IgM are elevated it is indicative of LPL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9671/3 [lymphoplasmactyic lymphoma (LPL)] per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes and Rule PH17. When IgG and IgM are elevated, code to lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia is caused by increased lymphocytes which causes an increase in IgM. LPL has mixed abnormalities, both the lymphocytes and plasma cells are increased which results in an abnormally high IgM and IgG.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130056","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the site and histology fields coded if a bone marrow biopsy shows, ""B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,"" but the patient has no palpable lymphadenopathy and no scans were done? See Discussion.","Should the primary site be C779 or C421? Is the correct histology 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, immunoblastic, NOS]?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] per Rule PH26. B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma is listed under Alternative Names section of the Heme BD for DLBCL [9680/3]. This patient has bone marrow involvement only. The Note for Rule PH26 instructs one to code the primary site to the bone marrow when all physical exams or work-up were negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement OR no other work-up was done.
The histology is not coded 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, immunoblastic, NOS]. This histology code became obsolete in 1/1/2010. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic variant is also listed under Alternative Names section of the Heme BD for DLBCL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130055","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a lymphoma with multifocal bone and epidural involvement but no lymph node involvement if the physician does not clearly state the primary site? See Discussion.","MRI Lumbar spine: Bony metastatic disease most evident at L5, L3 and T10. There is marrow tumor in the posterior elements of T12 and T10. The 14 mm epidural mass represents epidural tumor, likely metastatic, extending into the left intervertebral foramen at T12-L1.
PET scan: Hypermetabolic activity corresponding to epidural mass at the level of T12 and L1 concerning for malignancy. Other small areas of hypermetabolic activity in the left mandible and both femoral necks. There is no hypermetabolic activity corresponding to the areas of abnormal marrow edema in the vertebral bodies which enhanced on MRI scan in the lumbar and lower thoracic spine. No lymph nodes mentioned.
Biopsy epidural mass: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with a background of follicular lymphoma, consistent with a large cell transformation. Flow cytometry confirms a mixed large and small cell population of lymphoma (55% large cells).
T12/L1 Bone Biopsy: Bone and marrow with atypical paratrabecular lymphoid infiltrates, suspicious for involvement by follicular lymphoma. Negative for large cell lymphoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] to C809 [unknown primary site] per Rule PH27. The patient has involvement of multiple bones and an epidural mass with no evidence of nodal involvement. Code the primary site to unknown [C809] when multiple organs are involved without any lymph node involvement, even when there is no statement from the physician regarding primary site.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130054","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a lobectomy has two tumors that are both stated to be adenocarcinoma but the pathologist states they are synchronous primaries? See Discussion.","Left upper lung lobectomy: Adenocarcinoma, poorly-differentiated (grade 3), tumor size 1.2 cm, confined to lung. Second primary lung tumor: adenocarcinoma, well-differentiated (grade 1), tumor size 0.9 cm, confined to lung. Diagnosis COMMENT: The two tumors, although both adenocarcinoma, show markedly different histologies and thus are classified as synchronous primaries. Multiple synchronous primaries are staged separately according to the 7th edition of AJCC.
The AJCC Staging Manual 7th ed states, ""Multiple tumors may be considered to be synchronous primaries if they are of different histological cell types. When multiple tumors are of the same cell type, they should only be considered to be synchronous primary tumors if, in the opinion of the pathologist, based on features such as ..., they represent different subtypes of the same histologic cell type...""
In this case, the pathologist insists these are two synchronous primaries, although different subtypes are not given, because the tumors have different grades and look completely different under the microscope. The MP/H rules indicate this is a single primary. How many primaries are accessioned?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341]. 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 Lung MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has two tumors in the same lung with the same histology.
Do not use the AJCC Manual to make multiple primary decisions. Use the MP/H Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession.
","2013" "20130052","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if a biopsy final diagnosis is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma but the physician's final diagnosis favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion.","Patient has diffuse intrathoracic, intraabdominal and pelvic lymphadenopathy. An inguinal lymph node biopsy showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The physician's final diagnosis favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma, but wanted to confirm this with FISH. The patient clinically deteriorated so the FISH studies were not done. Which histology is coded?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The histology should be coded as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The biopsy pathology report definitively diagnosed DLBCL. The physician's diagnosis cannot be used because it is an ambiguous diagnosis only, ""favored anaplastic large cell lymphoma."" ""Favor"" is an ambiguous term.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130051","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when biopsies of the left and right tonsils show diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and there is no other evidence of involvement? See Discussion.","Scans are negative for lymphadenopathy and the bone marrow biopsy was benign. Radiation Oncology staged this as localized bilateral tonsil primary lymphoma.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] of bilateral tonsils. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. Note 1 for Rule M2 states bilateral involvement of lymph nodes and/or organs is still a single primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130050","Multiple Primaries/Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what is the primary site and histology for each if a 6/12/12 left shoulder mass specimen suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma is followed on 7/10/12 with three skin nodules excised from the back with a diagnosis of ""composite lymphoma? See Discussion.","6/12/12 Excisional biopsy left shoulder soft tissue mass: Suspicious for large B-cell lymphoma.
7/10/12 Excisional biopsy three skin nodules of back: ""Composite lymphoma"" - primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (CD3 pos, CD4 pos, CD30 pos, ALK neg with partial loss of CD5) and CONCURRENT cutaneous follicular center lymphoma (CD20 pos, PAX5 pos, BCL-6 pos, partially CD10 pos) and flow cytometry revealed results compatible with involvement by a lymphoproliferative disorder of T-cell lineage.
Per imaging performed, there was no involvement of lymph nodes or other organs.
Is the primary site C449 Skin, NOS and histology 9718/3 [Lymphoma, primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell] be correct?
","Code primary site to C445 [skin, back] and histology to 9718/3 [cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma] .
Per Rule M6, abstract a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location. For this case, there is cutaneous follicular (follicle) center lymphoma (9597/3) and cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (9718/3).
Per Rule PH22, code the primary site to the site or origin (skin, back) and the histology to the NHL with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code. In this case, that would be 9718/3.
","2013" "20130047","Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.","In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.","Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].
Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.
","2013" "20130045","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if subsequent to a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia there is an oncology consult note that indicates the pathology finding is suggestive of an underlying myelodysplastic syndrome? See Discussion","5/14/12 Bone marrow biopsy: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
5/21/12 Oncology consult: AML with 30-40% blasts and evidence of del(20q) and del(5q), is suggestive of an underlying myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Hence the patient has secondary AML.
If these are two primaries, how are the diagnosis dates coded?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as a single primary diagnosed on 5/14/12 as acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related (e.g., del(5q)) changes [9895/3] per Rule M2. The patient was diagnosed with a single histology, acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes per the submitted information.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130044","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has a biopsy diagnosis of extraosseous plasmacytoma followed fourteen days later with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma on imaging? See Discussion.","On 2/3/12 the patient was diagnosed via biopsy with an extraosseous (extramedullary) plasmacytoma filling both nasal cavities. On 2/16/12 a metastatic workup was performed and showed a lucent lesion in calvarium of Rt frontal bone. 2/17/12 radiation oncology consult states, ""I believe this is most likely consistent with multiple myeloma."" Subsequently, the 3/1/12 CT of the left shoulder showed a 3.6 cm lytic lesion of humeral head with cortical breakthrough consistent with metastasis or myeloma.
Per the Heme DB, extramedullary plasmacytoma can transform to multiple myeloma. Does that make this multiple primaries with the histologies coded to 9734/3 and 9732/3?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, multiple myeloma [9732/3] diagnosed on 2/3/12 per Rule M8. Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary when both a chronic and acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive tissue biopsy.
This patient only had a tissue biopsy of the nasal cavity proving the chronic neoplasm (extraosseous plasmacytoma). The acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) was diagnosed clinically based on the scans.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130043","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is reactive plasmacytosis a reportable diagnosis that is equivalent to plasmacytoma?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Reactive plasmacytosis is not reportable unless there is another indication of a reportable neoplastic disease. Reactive plasmacytosis is ""a well known pathological process described as occurring in a variety of situations including infections, autoimmune disease, diabetes mellitus, sideropenia, liver cirrhosis and neoplastic conditions including leukemia. This process, by definition, is assumed to be a reaction of the immune system to an unknown or poorly defined stimulus."" Based on this definition, reactive plasmacytosis is not the same as a plasmacytoma, although it may indicate the presence of a neoplastic process, such as leukemia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130042","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is follicular lymphoma in situ reportable? See Discussion.","Parotid mass and intraparotid lymph node biopsy: Follicular lymphoma in situ (see note).
Note: The morphologic findings in conjunction with the results of immunohistochemical stains demonstrate focal follicular lymphoma in situ in a background of reactive follicular hyperplasia. Cytogenetic studies on the parotid mass demonstrated a normal karyotype. FISH analysis for BCL2 and BCL6 gene rearrangements has been requested and will be reported separately.
","Per the Note under Case Reportability Instructions Rule 3 in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual, do not report in situ [/2] lymphomas.","2013" "20130041","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a flow cytometry immunophenotyping of peripheral blood that demonstrates a chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable as CLL? See Discussion.","Final Diagnosis: ""Peripheral blood, flow cytometry immunophenotyping: Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) phenotype; Negative for Zap 70; No abnormal T-cell population identified; CD34-positive blasts are not increased.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is reportable. Code the histology to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)]. Per Rule PH5, Note 1, CLL will always have peripheral blood involvement. Based on the provided information, this patient's peripheral blood is positive for CLL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130040","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when a patient has a history of chronic myeloid leukemia diagnosed in 1993 followed by a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia, blast phase? See Discussion.
","12/1993 Bone marrow biopsy: Chronic myeloid leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11).
09/2011 Bone marrow biopsy: Abnormal cytogenetic & FISH support persistent involvement by chronic myelogenous leukemia.
12/2011 Peripheral blood, flow cytometry: Involvement by acute myeloid leukemia arising in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML, blast phase, 30% blasts by manual diff.).
Is the 12/2011 diagnosis a new primary? If not, why don't Rules M8-M13 apply when the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section for CML indicates that when there is a chronic, accelerated and blast phase that develops later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis?
","
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a multiple primary: chronic myelogenous leukemia t(9;22) (q34;q11) [9863/3] diagnosed in 1993 and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M15.
Use the diagnosis date to determine the appropriate manual and rules to follow to determine the histologies for this case. To determine the histology of the 1993 diagnosis, use the ICD-O-2. The Heme Manual & DB will be used to determine the number of primaries and the histology of the 2011 diagnosis of AML.
Rules M8-M13 in the Heme Manual cannot be applied to this case because no transformation occurred. CML does not transform to another neoplasm.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130037","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a ""cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type"" that has been verified as a valid diagnosis with prognostic factors including age and number of lesions on the legs?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code this histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Primary cutaneous DLBCL, leg type, is listed as an Alternate Name for DLBCL per the Heme DB.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130035","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when a subsequent diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (95%) and follicular lymphoma, grade 3 (5%) is made following an original diagnosis of low grade CD-10 positive B-cell lymphoma, most consistent with low grade follicular lymphoma (FL) ? See Discussion.
","In 2011, patient presented with a large mesenteric mass, numerous other smaller mesenteric lymph nodes, moderate retroperitoneal and extensive iliac chain adenopathy greater on right; small inguinal nodes are also present mostly on right side and splenomegaly per the CT scan. Abdominal pelvic mass needle biopsies showed low grade CD-10 positive B-cell lymphoma, most consistent with low grade follicular lymphoma (FL). The patient was treated with R-CVP with unknown response.
In June 2012, patient presented again for laparoscopy and lymph node biopsy for stated recurrence of lymphoma found on CT scan. A large mass was seen in mesentery of bowel. Abdominal mass biopsy showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Abdominal mass #2 excisional biopsy showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 95%, and follicular lymphoma grade 3, 5%. The majority of the tumor is now DLBCL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M7. Note 4 for Rule M7 states to change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in this case. There is no time restriction for rule M7. Apply rule PH11 and code the histology as 9680/3 [DLBCL] when both DLBCL and follicular lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s).
Ambiguous terminology is not used to code a more specific histologic type per the Heme Manual. The information submitted states only that this low grade B-cell lymphoma was ""most consistent with follicular lymphoma."" The term ""consistent with"" is an ambiguous term per SEER and cannot be used to code the histology of the 2011 neoplasm as follicular lymphoma. There was no subsequent clinical statement that this patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in 2011.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Although the ambiguous terminology on the pathology report is not used to code the histology to follicular lymphoma, had there been a subsequent clinical statement that this patient had follicular lymphoma, the histology would be coded to follicular lymphoma [9690/3]. A diagnosis of follicular lymphoma followed by a diagnosis of DLBCL more than 21 days later is a new primary per rule M12.
","2013" "20130033","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for a low grade B-cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation?
","","This answer has been corrected. Previous answer is shown below under ""History.""
Assign 9591/3 for this case.
See also SINQ 20190070.
","2013" "20130032","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for plasma cell myeloma with radiologic evidence of multiple lytic lesions? See Discussion.","Patient complained of pain in the right side and back right upper flank area. CT shows an anterior mediastinal mass and abnormal appearance of skeleton. CXR: Age indeterminate T8 compression fracture. CT chest: abnormal appearance of skeleton. Correlate clinically for myeloma or mets. Acute T5 or T8 compression fractures. Anterior mediastinal mass which may represent thymoma, lymph nodes or metastases. 03/22/12 Metastatic Series: Nonspecific hypodensities in pelvis, left hip and right acromion. Possibility of myeloma can't be totally excluded. Bone marrow right post iliac crest core biopsy, clot section and aspirate: plasma cell myeloma.
Should the primary site be coded to the bone marrow because the diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma was supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic lesions? The bone marrow biopsy confirmed the radiology reports.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per the Heme DB and Rule PH30. The Primary Site(s) section in the Heme DB indicates the primary site for plasma cell myeloma is C421 [bone marrow].
The Primary Site Coding Instructions in the Heme Manual (Rule 1) states that when a specific code is listed under the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB it is the only primary site code that can be assigned for that leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome or myeloproliferative syndrome. Applying the PH Rules will result in the same answer for primary site, bone marrow [C421].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130031","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a plasmacytoma of the intervertebral disc is diagnosed in 2010 followed by a diagnosis of immature plasma cell myeloma by a right hip biopsy in 2011? See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with intervertebral disc plasmacytoma and had radiation therapy to the pelvic bones in 2010. In 2011 (more than 21 days later) a right hip biopsy revealed immature plasma cell myeloma. There is clinical documentation that this is progression into myeloma. Per the Heme DB (Primary Site(s) and Definition sections) and Rule PH30, in the Heme Manual, the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow] and the histology is coded 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma] when there is a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma and/or there is no documentation of a bone marrow biopsy or the results are unknown. This patient did have a bone marrow biopsy that indicates there are an increased plasma cells present; plasma cells represent less than 10%. The skeletal survey and bone scan did not reveal any further lesions.
Is this progression of disease because there is only one lesion in the right hip 8 months after the diagnosis of plasmacytoma? Or is this a second primary based on the right hip biopsy that showed plasma cell myeloma and the physician's documentation of disease progression? Plasmacytomas are usually single lesions. Would this disease process have multiple lesions if they are diagnosed at different times?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as two primaries: Plasmacytoma diagnosed in 2010 and plasma cell myeloma diagnosed in 2011 per Rule M10. The patient has a diagnosis of a solitary plasmacytoma (chronic neoplasm) followed by a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma (acute neoplasm) diagnosed greater than 21 days later.
The physician is calling this a progression to plasma cell myeloma even though the bone marrow has less than 10% plasma cells, take this statement as progression or a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130030","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a patient diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic [9684/3] in 2009 and a recurrence in 2010 at another facility was referred to as plasmablastic lymphoma [9735/3]? See Discussion.
","Which code is correct for the merged record? Is code 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma] correct because code 9684/3 [DLBCL, immunoblastic] is now obsolete?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case was originally diagnosed in 2009, prior to the development of Hematopoietic Database. Therefore it is necessary to use the ICD-O-3 to code histology to 9684/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic]. Use the original histology diagnosed for the merged record because DLBCL, immunoblastic, and plasmablastic lymphoma are the same primary. Do not change the histology to code 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130029","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""post polycythemic myelofibrosis"" reportable? See Discussion.","The bone marrow biopsy showed post polycythemic myelofibrosis. JAK2 mutations were present confirming the diagnosis of post polycythemic myelofibrosis. The patient does have a history of polycythemia vera (PV).","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Polycythemia Vera (PV) [9950/3] is reportable. The Abstractor Notes section in the Hematopoietic Database for PV indicates there are three phases of PV. The third phase is referred to as the ""spent"" or ""post-polycythemic myelofibrosis phase"". This patient appears to be in the third phase of PV. This would not be reported as a new primary if PV has already been reported.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130028","Primary site--CLL/SLL: How is the primary site coded and what rule applies when no bone marrow biopsy is performed on a patient diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) which was based on the results of an axillary biopsy, positive peripheral blood and a CT scan showing multiple lymph nodes involved above and below the diaphragm? See Discussion","The physician staged this as Stage 0 CLL/SLL. Should the primary site be coded to lymph nodes if the MD stated this was leukemia?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per Rule PH5. Code the primary site to the bone marrow when the peripheral blood is involved, even if no bone marrow biopsy is performed.
According to the notes for Rule PH5, CLL always has peripheral blood involvement (PH5 Note 1). CLL/SLL may also have involvement of lymph node regions in later stages (PH5, Note 2). For this patient a bone marrow biopsy was not performed but he had extensive lymph node and peripheral blood involvement. Therefore, the primary site is coded to C421. In addition, the physician's documentation specifies this patient has Stage 0 disease which indicates this disease process is being classified as leukemia (CLL).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130027","Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion.
","The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is ""neuroendocrine tumor."" Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term ""well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor"" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect?
","Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline].
The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for ""Carcinoid of appendix"" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:
MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies when the patient has a mixed tumor with a urothelial carcinoma, NOS and a more specific histologic type followed by a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma? See Discussion.
","The MP/H Rules do not specifically cover how to process urothelial carcinomas with a more specific type of carcinoma.
Patient 1: Diagnosed in April 2010 with invasive urothelial carcinoma with signet ring features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded as C679 [bladder] and 8490/3 [signet ring cell carcinoma]. In January 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder is made [C679, 8120/3].
Patient 2: Diagnosed in November 2009 with invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma with micropapillary and mucinous features of the bladder. Site and histology are coded C679 [bladder] and 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. In April 2012 a subsequent diagnosis of high grade papillary and flat urothelial carcinoma without evidence of invasion is made [C679, 8130/2].
Does rule M9 apply and these are new primaries?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, accession two primaries for each patient, signet ring cell carcinoma of the bladder and invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 1 and mucinous carcinoma of the bladder and non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for patient 2.
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 Urinary MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. For both patients, rule M9 applies because the tumors have histology codes that are different at the second (xxx) number.
This guideline will be reviewed for the next version of the MP/H Rules.
","2013" "20130023","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for ""intradural extramedullary schwannomas""? Are all ""spinal"" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be ""intradural""? See Discussion.
","If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?
","The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be ""intradural"" or ""of the nerve root."" Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.
","2013" "20130022","Reportability--Melanoma: Is ""early"" melanoma reportable? See Discussion.
","Because ""evolving"" melanoma was never reportable, this issue only relates to ""early"" melanoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2018 to 2020, early or evolving melanoma is not reportable.
Evolving melanoma (borderline evolving melanoma): Evolving melanoma are tumors of uncertain biologic behavior. Histological changes of borderline evolving melanoma are too subtle for a definitive diagnosis of melanoma in situ. The tumors may be described as ""proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermal and adnexal epithelium,"" ""atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation, ""atypical intraepidermal melanocytic hyperplasia""; or ""severe melanocytic dysplasia."" Not reportable.
Melanoma Solid Tumor Rules, 2018, page 3, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/Melanoma_STM.pdf
","2013" "20130021","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: When will the follicular lymphoma, grade 1 code [9695/3] ever be used? See Discussion.","The Abstractor Notes currently do not explain the histologic classification of follicular lymphoma [FL]. Frequently, FL grade 1 and 2 are not being separated and are described as ""low grade"" or ""grade 1-2"" in the pathology final diagnosis. The correct histology code would be 9691/3 [FL, grade 2] for these cases. Apparently, per the 2008 WHO Classification, grade 1 and grade 2 are being grouped together as grade 1-2 due to the minimal difference in patient outcome. If these histologies are grouped together, will histology code 9695/3 [FL, grade 1] ever be used? Should the Heme Database explain the classifications of follicular lymphoma grade 1, 2, and 3?","When the latest WHO classification for heme neoplasms was written in 2008, there was a lot of controversy about whether or not the FL grading system was useful or not. A number of papers have been written stating that grades 1 and 2 do not have a statistically different survival or transformation rate. Given that the controversy had not been settled by those in the clinical world, the WHO recommended analyzing grades 1 and 2 together. They did not, however, remove either grade 1 or 2 from their classification. When the WHO intend to change their classification (have both grades classified under one histology number), they omit one code from their book (make it obsolete) and change the definition for the other code. The 2008 WHO book did not make either ICD-O-3 code obsolete. Therefore, we continue to collect the cases as designated by the pathologist. If the controversy is settled before the next WHO classification, you may see changes in the codes.
Additionally, since the 2008 WHO book was written, there have been some clinical papers challenging the designation of grade 3. They contend that grade 3 can be mistaken for low-grade.
The grades for follicular lymphoma are based on the number of centroblasts per high powered field (HPF). The number of centroblasts for grade 1 is 0-5; for grade 2 is 6-15, for grade 3a and 3b is >15 centroblasts. 3a has centrocytes and 3b has no centrocytes.
","2013" "20130020","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is aplastic anemia reportable and is it an alternate name for refractory anemia?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Aplastic anemia is not reportable and it is not an alternative name for refractory anemia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130019","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded when a patient has a lymph node biopsy and peripheral blood that are positive for B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma but refuses a bone marrow biopsy?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per Rule PH5. Note 1 for Rule PH5 states CLL always has peripheral blood involvement. If the peripheral blood is positive for CLL/SLL and no bone marrow biopsy is done, code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130017","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is reactive thrombocytosis reportable? See Discussion.
","The doctor's impression: ""Thrombocytosis, mild without other obvious hematologic difficulty. I would be most suspicious for early iron deficiency related to her prior menometrorrhagia. Would limit initial evaluation to iron studies, review of peripheral smear, and hepatic profile.""","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Reactive thrombocytosis is not reportable and is not an alternative name for essential thrombocythemia [9962/3].
Only the following are listed as alternate names for essential thrombocythemia in the Heme DB:
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130016","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with small lymphocytic lymphoma in 1996, received chemotherapy on and off for 15 years due to relapses, and was subsequently diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2012?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M10, this case should be accessioned as two primaries. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
The histology for the 1996 chronic neoplasm is coded to 9670/3 [small lymphocytic lymphoma]. The histology for the 2012 acute neoplasm is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130015","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is essential thrombocytopenia reportable? See Discussion.","Many times essential thrombocytopenia has been coded based on blood counts. Sometimes the discharge summary states thrombocytosis (NOS), and the case is coded to essential thrombocytopenia. Are these cases reportable?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The following are not alternative names for any reportable disease process:
The diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia is based on blood counts, but is usually a diagnosis made by excluding other myelodysplastic disorders. The following are reportable disease processes:
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130014","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Castleman disease reportable when diagnosed 2010 and later?","When checking Castleman disease in the Hematopoietic Database, the result is a reportable histology code 9738/3. However, per an online search, Castleman disease is a very rare disorder characterized by non-cancerous growths (tumors).","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Castleman disease, NOS, is not reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. However, when Castleman disease is diagnosed in connection with large B-cell lymphoma [9738/3], it is reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130013","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) reportable?
","MCAS has been given an ICD-9 code of 202.60 by our medical record coders. In the Progress Notes, the physicians state this is not the same as systemic mastocytosis. There is no listing for MCAS in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Database.
","Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) is not a reportable neoplasm unless it is specifically stated to be a result of a mast cell proliferative disorder that is reportable.
Per our expert pathologist, MCAS is a relatively new term used for conditions in which patients experience the symptoms of mast cell mediators in the absence of an increase/proliferation of mast cells. The diagnosis of this group of disorders is based in part on a complex of symptoms and on the demonstration of no increase in mast cells. Some of these diseases are difficult to separate from mastocytosis (which is reportable). Currently, this group of disorders is not part of the systemic mastocytosis/mast cell leukemia/mast cell sarcoma spectrum.
","2013" "20130012","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: If topography codes C681-C689 are not included in Urinary Multiple Primary Rule M8, would a subsequent renal pelvis papillary transitional cell carcinoma be a new primary? See Discussion.
","The patient had a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter diagnosed in 2010. The primary site was coded to C689 [urinary system, NOS]. The patient was diagnosed with a transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis [C659] in 2012. In applying the MP/H rules to the 2012 diagnosis, rule M8 would be ignored because the primary site of the 2010 primary was coded to C689. The result is that M9 or M10 would be applied which indicates a new primary for the 2012 diagnosis. Should the 2012 renal pelvis carcinoma be a new primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and ureter [C689, urinary system, NOS] diagnosed in 2010. 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 Urinary MP Rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. This patient has urothelial tumors in two or more of the listed sites (bladder, ureter and renal pelvis) diagnosed within 3 years.
When C689 is assigned because tumors of the bladder and tumors of the ureter were determined to be a single primary and the site of origin is not known (as in this example), rule M8 is applied when a subsequent tumor is diagnosed in one of the listed sites. However, if site C689 [urinary system, NOS] was assigned for other unknown urinary primary site situations, rule M8 would not be used.
Rule M8 was written specifically for urothelial tumors in the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and urethra. Paraurethral gland [C681] and overlapping lesions of urinary organs [C688] do not belong in rule M8.
We will add this issue to the list of possible revisions for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.
","2013" "20130010","MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for ""infiltrative carcinoma with ductal alterations compatible with squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma"" of the skin?","","Code the histology to 8413/3 [eccrine adenocarcinoma]. This is the most specific code available for this diagnosis.
According to our expert pathologist advisor, ""The adnexal glands in the skin, sweat (eccrine) glands and apocrine glands, all have ducts which connect the business portion of each gland to the skin surface. Some of the adnexal tumors have features of differentiation which appear to be duct-like, hence the designation 'ductal.'""
In addition, ""The 'squamoid' simply indicates some degree of squamous differentiation, but doesn't alter the usefulness of [code 8413/3] because we have no way of coding anything more specific in this case anyway.""
","2013" "20130009","Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion.","The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade?","For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.
This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document.
","2013" "20130008","Primary site--Kidney, renal pelvis: Should primary site be coded C809 [unknown] or C649 [kidney] when a patient is diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a transplanted kidney?","","Code the primary site to C649 [kidney]. Per the SEER Manual, code the site where the neoplasm originated. There are no separate instructions for coding primary site for transplanted organs. This patient's renal cell carcinoma originated in the kidney [C649].","2013" "20130007","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What rule applies and how is histology coded if a colon tumor is composed of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1 (G1)? See Discussion.
","Intestine, large -- moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma
Pathological stage: IIIA (T2 N1a Mx) -- Neuroendocrine tumor, G1
Addendum comment: The results of the immunochemical study are compatible with a neuroendocrine tumor, G1.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the correct histology code is 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Colon Histology rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Step 2: Start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule H9. Code the histology as 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor.
Neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1 (G1) is synonymous with carcinoid tumor [8240/3] for the purpose of rule H9.
","2013" "20130005","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are spinal schwannomas and neurofibromas reportable or non-reportable?","","The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be ""intradural"" or ""of the nerve root."" Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.","2013" "20130003","MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: How is the histology coded for a mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the parotid gland? See Discussion.
","There is no histology listed in the ICD-O-3 for a mammary analogue secretory carcinoma. The pathologist stated that, ""MASC is a recently described salivary gland tumor type which, as the name implies, resembles secretory carcinoma of the breast."" Should the histology be coded 8550/3 [acinar carcinoma] or 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast]?
","Assign code 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast].
Acinar carcinoma [8550/3] describes a very typical type of salivary gland tumor only. This histology code does not adequately capture the histology in this case which describes a secretory carcinoma that is similar to mammary cancer. Both of these elements are reflected in the histology code 8502/3 [secretory carcinoma of breast].
","2013" "20130002","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned, and what is the year of diagnosis, when the patient was initially diagnosed with poorly differentiated, diffuse lymphocytic lymphoma, small cleaved cell [9591/3] in 1991, followed by multiple recurrences and transformations? See Discussion.
","5/1991 Left groin biopsy: Poorly differentiated, diffuse lymphocytic lymphoma, small cleaved cell [9591/3].
Subsequently, the patient had multiple recurrences.
7/1/08 Left axillary biopsy: Disease transformed to malignant lymphoma, large B-cell and a small focus of follicular lymphoma.
Patient was followed until there was no evidence of disease.
4/22/10 Left axillary biopsy: Recurrence of follicular lymphoma, grade 1. No large cell component was found. The bone marrow biopsy was negative for lymphoma. The patient was on observation.
11/02/10 MD note indicates the disease progressed to follicular lymphoma, grade 3. No large cell component was identified. The patient clinically has no evidence of disease on maintenance Rituxan.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (previously called poorly differentiated, diffuse lymphocytic lymphoma, small cleaved cell) [9591/3] diagnosed in 1991.
Determining the number of primaries is based on the rules in effect at the time of each diagnosis. The original lymphoma was diagnosed in 1991 and the first transformation to follicular lymphoma in 2008. The pre-2010 rules for coding histology and determining multiple primaries must be applied first because the rules changed for diagnoses occurring 2010 or later. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, poorly differentiated, diffuse lymphocytic lymphoma, small cleaved cell [9591/3] is the same primary as follicular lymphoma [9690].
The Heme DB and Manual are used to confirm that the 2010 recurrences of follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3], and follicular lymphoma, grade 3 [9698/3], are the same primary according to the Heme Calculator check required per Rule M15. Per the Heme DB page, the diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 3 [9698/3] and follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] are comparable to follicular lymphoma [9690] as stated in the section.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2013" "20130001","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are hemangioma, NOS (9120/0), cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) or venous hemangioma (9122/0) reportable when they arise in the brain or CNS?
","","
Hemangioma, NOS (9120/0) and cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) arising in the dura and parenchyma of the brain/CNS are reportable.
Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous hemangioma arising in the brain is blood vessel (C490). The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. This is a venous abnormality. Previously called venous angiomas, these are currently referred to as a developmental venous anomalies (DVA).
","2013" "20120095","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with inflammatory carcinoma of the left breast, (ductal with apocrine features type on biopsy), and an incidental lobular carcinoma in the right breast? See Discussion.","A 1.2 cm lobular carcinoma was incidentally discovered during the work-up of the patient's left breast that was inflammatory carcinoma. The lobular carcinoma on the right was localized without any skin involvement. Rule M6 indicates inflammatory breast carcinoma in either breast is a single primary. Does rule M6 apply when the patient has inflammatory carcinoma in one breast and a separate lobular carcinoma in the other?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal with apocrine features in the left breast and lobular carcinoma in the right breast.
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 Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has tumors in both the right and left breasts.
Rule M6 does not apply because inflammatory carcinoma involves only the left breast and the patient has a different histology in the right breast and there is no mention of inflammatory carcinoma in that breast. In this situation continue to the next applicable rule.
","2012" "20120094","Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.
","VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?
","For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.
","2012" "20120093","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries -- Ovary: How many primaries are to be accessioned and what rule applies when a patient has a serous carcinoma of the right ovary treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a debulking surgery that revealed a serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma of the left fallopian tube?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, serous carcinoma of the right ovary and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma of the left fallopian tube based on the information provided.
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) and go to the Other Sites MP rules because neither the ovary nor fallopian tube have site specific rules developed.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. The patient has multiple tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the third character (Cxx) and therefore this case should be accessioned as a multiple primary.
It could be helpful to know the extent of involvement noted prior to neoadjuvant therapy and debulking surgery. For example, if the patient had widely metastatic disease throughout the entire pelvis prior to the initiation of treatment, the answer may have been different.
","2012" "20120092","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Recurrence -- Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung is followed three years later by a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung if the pathologist reviews all the slides and states the subsequent diagnosis is a recurrence? See Discussion.","7/12/2007 Left upper lobe lung lobectomy: Squamous cell carcinoma.
3/09/2010 Left lung completion pneumonectomy: Adenocarcinoma, predominantly acinar. The diagnosis comment on the pathology report indicates the previous lobectomy specimen from 2007 was reviewed and ""there are areas that appear histologically similar to the current neoplasm. Thus, the findings are most compatible with recurrence.""
Despite the difference in histology, is this a single primary per the MP/H Coding Rules, General Information instruction 7 because the pathologist did refer to the 3/9/2010 diagnosis as a ""recurrence"" of the 7/12/2007 diagnosis after reviewing the slides?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, left upper lobe squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed 7/27/2007.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the General Information notes for Determining Multiple Primaries for Solid Malignant Tumors in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
General Information Rule 7 states ""Use the multiple primary rules as written unless a pathologist compares the present tumor to the ""original"" tumor and states that this tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary.""
Accession a single primary. Do not apply the Multiple Primary rules because the pathologist compared the 2007 and 2010 slides and determined this was a recurrence and not a new primary.
","2012" "20120091","Reportability/Behavior--Kidney: Is epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) of the kidney a reportable malignancy? See Discussion.","The addendum final diagnosis on a pathology report for a kidney core needle biopsy included the results of additional stains performed on the tissue. It indicated the morphology was most consistent with epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Further comments in the body of the report indicate these tumors are now considered malignant neoplasms with the capacity to be locally aggressive and they can potentially metastasize. There is no mention of a metastasis in this particular case.","Epithelioid angiomyolipoma (AML) [8860/0] of the kidney is not reportable unless stated to be malignant.
If the pathologist confirms this is a malignancy, apply ICD-O-3 Rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /3. If confirmation is received, accession the case using the morphology code 8860/3 [malignant angiomyolipoma].
","2012" "20120090","First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Can a drug be coded as treatment for primary sites or histologies not listed for that drug in the SEER*Rx Database? See Discussion.","The patient was diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia in 2008 followed by a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2011. Per the physician statement, the patient started nilotinib in 10/2011 for CML.
The SEER*Rx Database lists CML and GIST as the only primary site/histology combinations treated using nilotinib. Can nilotinib also be coded as treatment for the CLL primary?
","SEER*Rx lists the approved sites/histologies for each drug. However, if you have a physician statement that indicates the drug was given for another site/histology, code the agent as treatment for that site/histology.","2012" "20120089","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: The final diagnosis on a path report for a colon specimen says: Is a colon specimen final diagnosis of carcinoma in situ in a serrated adenoma coded to 8010/2, 8210/2 or 8213/2?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as 8213/2 [carcinoma in situ in a serrated adenoma].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
: Apply ICD-O-3 rule F (Matrix principle) and assign the behavior code /2 when the behavior assigned by the pathologist differs from the usual behavior as given in the ICD-O-3.
: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Colon Histology rules.
: Start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at rule H4. Code the histology as 8213/2.
Note: The histology 8213 (adenocarcinoma in serrated adenoma) will be added to rule H4 in the next revision.
","2012" "20120088","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries are accessioned and what rule applies if a patient has an extensive tumor in the left ethmoid sinus and a separate tumor in the right maxillary sinus? See Discussion.
","MRI and CT Neck Impression: Extensive tumor mass which likely originated within the left ethmoid sinus and extends intracranially via the cribriform plate into the anterior cranial fossa. There is involvement of the left orbit and extension into the superior aspect of the left maxillary sinuses as well as the nose. Second enhancing lesion within the right maxillary sinus measures almost 2 cm. The second mass within the floor of the right maxillary sinus, with similar imaging characteristics, is consistent with malignant involvement.
The patient has an extensive ethmoid sinus tumor, biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma. The ethmoid sinus is not a paired organ. The patient also has a small maxillary tumor with no histologic confirmation, Hem/Oncology chart notes state the right maxillary sinus mass is carcinoma. The maxillary sinus is a paired organ.
Per the AJCC Manual (AJCC Manual for Staging, 7th edition, page 70), both the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses are further identified by their laterality (left and right). Why aren't the ethmoid sinuses a paired organ for the MP/H Rules? What MP rule applies to this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary.
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 Head and Neck MP rules after determining the histology of each tumor - (8070/3 [squamous cell carcinoma] and 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]) because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Abstract a single when one tumor is carcinoma, NOS [8010] and another tumor is a specific carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma [8070] because the ethmoid sinus (site of origin) is not a paired site per the MP/H rules.
We will review the list of paired organs for the next edition of the MP/H Rules.
","2012" "20120087","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is the histology coded and what rule(s) apply for ""cyst associated renal cell carcinoma,"" ""cystic renal cell carcinoma,"" and ""cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type""? See Discussion.
","
Per SINQ 20031008, these histologies were all coded as 8316/3 [cyst associated renal cell carcinoma]. What are the correct codes for these histologies using the 2007 MP/H Rules?
","
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the correct histology code for both cyst associated renal cell carcinoma and cystic renal cell carcinoma is 8316/3. The histology code for cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type is 8255/3.
The steps used to arrive at these decisions are:
Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Kidney Histology rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Step 2: For the first histology, cyst associated renal cell carcinoma, start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H5. According to this rule you are to use Table 1 if you have a renal cell carcinoma and mention of a more specific renal cell type. To locate Table 1, go to Kidney under the Terms & Definitions section. Per Table 1, titled Renal Cell Carcinomas and Specific Renal Cell Types, ""cyst associated"" is a specific type of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology to 8316/3 [cyst associated renal cell carcinoma].
Step 3: For the second histology, cystic renal cell carcinoma start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H5. As in the previous example you are to use Table 1 if you have a renal cell carcinoma and mention of a more specific renal cell type. Per Table 1 ""cystic"" is a specific type of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology to 8316/3 [cystic renal cell carcinoma].
Step 4: For the third histology, cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type, start at the SINGLE TUMOR module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at Rule H6 which states you are to code histology to 8255 (adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes) when there are two or more specific renal cell carcinoma types. To determine whether ""clear cell"" and ""cystic"" are types of renal cell carcinoma use Table 1 again. According to Table 1, both cystic and clear cell are specific types of renal cell carcinoma. Code the histology as 8255/3 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes].
","2012" "20120086","Primary site: What is the single primary site used for a patient with multiple tumors in the duodenum and jejunum? See discussion.","The patient has a tumor in the jejunum and another tumor in the duodenum. Both tumors have the same histology. This disease process is a single primary per Other Sites Rule M18. Is the primary site coded to the more invasive tumor? If the tumors are equally invasive, is the primary site coded to C179?","
Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS] for multiple invasive tumors of the small intestine accessioned as a single primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Go to the Primary Site subsection located in Section IV of the 2012 SEER Manual titled ""Description of This Neoplasm.""
Step 2: Apply instruction 5. ""Code the last digit of the primary site code to '9' for single primaries, when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined."" Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS].
When multiple tumors arising in different subsites are accessioned as a single primary, the primary site is coded to the NOS code, in this case small intestine, NOS [C179]. The level of invasion does not determine the primary site, unless one or more of the tumors is in situ and another is invasive.
","2012" "20120085","Reportability--Ovary: Are mature teratomas of the ovary reportable? See Discussion.
","Per a NAACCR Webinar from February 2011 (Testis), ""All adult (post-puberty) pure mature teratoma tumors are malignant and should be coded 9080/3.' Does this apply to ovarian cases? The medical record entries all seem to indicate this a benign process.
Should this NAACCR Webinar info be applied specifically to testicular cases? Would this be a reportable case if the primary site were testis?
The patient also has a history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid. SINQ 20100052 indicates a thyroid primary may present in an ovarian teratoma. Would this be reportable, or must there be mention of the histology other than, or in addition to, the mature teratoma?
","Mature teratomas in the ovary are benign [9080/0].
For testis, mature teratoma in an adult is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0).
With regard to the thyroid issue, from the information above, the medullary carcinoma in the patient's thyroid is clearly a separate event. According to our expert pathologist consultant, ""thyroid tissue is one of the many tissue types that may be seen in teratomas. When the teratoma has exclusively or predominantly thyroid tissue the term struma ovarii is used Adenoma or carcinoma of the thyroid type may be seen in this thyroid tissue. If medullary carcinoma were present in the thyroid tissue in the ovary/teratoma, there would be mention of it in the path report.""
","2012" "20120084","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology: How many primaries are accessioned and how is the histology coded if a patient has a 1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and a 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar and trabecular type? See Discussion.","FINAL Diagnosis: 2 separate lesions of the liver 1)1.2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma and 2) 7 cm hepatocellular carcinoma, solid, acinar, and trabecular type.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, hepatocellular carcinoma [8170/3].
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) and go to the Other Sites MP rules because liver does not have site specific rules developed.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. There is one tumor with HCC and another tumor with a specific type of HCC.
Hepatocellular carcinomas vary and often display different architectural patterns such as solid, acinar and trabecular.
","2012" "20120083","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 3 in 2006 and is subsequently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 2 in 2011? See Discussion.","June 2006, the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, grade 3 by cervical lymph node biopsy and bone marrow biopsy. The patient refused treatment but was followed.
May 2007, the patient had another cervical LN biopsy with a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 2.
July, 2009, a neck mass excision was diagnosed as follicular lymphoma, grade 3.
June 2011, another neck lymph node was excised and diagnosed as follicular lymphoma, grade 2.
According to the MP calculator, FL grade 3 [9698/3] is a separate primary from FL grade 2 [9691/3]. Is the June 2011 diagnosis of FL grade 2 a new primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M15. The histology is coded to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3] diagnosed in 2006. The 2011 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] is not a new primary.
Follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] is listed under the Same Primaries section of the Heme DB for 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3]. To confirm this, Rule M15 indicates we are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries because none of the rules from 1-14 apply. Per the calculator, these histologies represent the same primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120082","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient has two tumors in the left breast, one that is ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation and the other is ductal carcinoma, NOS? See Discussion.
","The final diagnosis from the left mastectomy was multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma (mpT1cN0) with associated intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in situ located between the invasive foci.
Larger 2:00 focus: moderately differentiated ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation (1.4 cm).
Smaller 3:00 focus: moderately to poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma (1.2 cm).
The histologies of the invasive foci should be coded 8523/3 and 8500/3 respectively. To determine the number of primaries, does rule M11 apply which indicates this should be a single primary even though ductal with mucinous differentiation is not in Tables 1 or 2? Or does rule M12 apply because there is a difference in the third digit of histology and thus means this should be reported as a multiple primary case?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation [8523/3] and ductal carcinoma, NOS [8500/3]. 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 Breast MP rules because site specific rules have been developed for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different that the third (xxx) digit and are, therefore, multiple primaries.
Ductal carcinoma with mucinous differentiation is not a specific type of ductal carcinoma identified in either Table 1 or 2. (To locate Tables 1 and 2, go to Breast under the Terms & Definitions section of the manual.) It is ductal carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma (mucinous carcinoma in this case) see Table 3. Rule M11 does not apply.
","2012" "20120081","Reportability: Is VIN II-III reportable?
","","For cases diagnosed 2021 and later
VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094.
","2012" "20120080","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis/Bladder: How many primaries are accessioned if the patient was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the renal pelvis in October 2006, TCC in situ of the bladder in July 2008 and TCC in situ of the ureter in November 2009?. See Discussion.","Per MP/H rule M8, the TCC in situ of the bladder diagnosed in July 2008 is the same primary as the TCC in situ of the renal pelvis diagnosed in October 2006. Should the new TCC in situ of the ureter diagnosed in November 2009 be a new primary per rule M7 because the renal pelvis TCC in situ was diagnosed in 2006? Or does the 3 year time frame for rule M7 start from the date of the last recurrence (July 2008)?","Abstract two primaries for this scenario per Rule M7. The first primary is the renal pelvis in Oct. 2006; the second primary is the ureter in Nov. 2009. The bladder tumor in July 2008 is not a new primary per Rule M8.
Compare the diagnosis date of the current (most recent) tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor. This applies even if the patient had six occurrences in-between these dates; you still compare the current tumor to the diagnosis date of the original tumor and ignore recurrences in this process.
See slide 6 of the Beyond the Basics presentation,
http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf.
","2012" "20120079","Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS?","","Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases.
As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology.
","2012" "20120076","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what histology codes are used for a 2005 diagnosis of nodular histiocytic lymphoma followed by a 2012 diagnosis of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.","Per the history and physical, patient was diagnosed in 2005 with nodular histiocytic lymphoma and had chemo at that time. Now the patient presents with enlarged right axillary lymph nodes. A lymph node core biopsy confirmed B-cell small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Flow cytometry was most consistent with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M15. Code the histology for the first primary to 9698/3 [nodular histiocytic lymphoma. Per the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, this histology is synonymous with follicular lymphoma, grade 3. Code the histology for the second primary to 9823/3 [B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma].
Nodular histiocytic lymphoma does not transform into CLL/SLL (Transformations to), nor does CLL/SLL transform to nodular histiocytic lymphoma (Transformations from). Rule M15 indicates we are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries in this case because none of the rules from 1-14 apply. Per the calculator, the CLL/SLL is a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120075","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma when a lymph node biopsy was positive for CLL/SLL but no bone marrow biopsy was performed? See Discussion.","A right neck lymph node biopsy and flow cytometry proved CLL/SLL. The PET scan showed multiple involved lymph nodes in the right cervical, mediastinal and para-aortic areas. No bone marrow biopsy was done. Per the Hematopoietic DB, Module 3, the histology should be coded 9823/3 [CLL/SLL], but how is primary site coded? The manual states to code the primary site to the involved lymph node region when there is no bone marrow involvement, but it does not specifically address how to code the primary site when no bone marrow biopsy or peripheral blood smear was done.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C77.8 [multiple lymph node regions, NOS].
Per Rule PH6, code the primary site to the involved lymph node region(s) when there is no bone marrow involvement or when it is unknown whether the bone marrow is involved. To determine the more specific lymph node subsite to code, use Rule PH21. It indicates one is to code the primary site to C778 [multiple lymph node regions, NOS] when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by the ICD-O-3 (see Table C1: Lymph Node/Lymph Node Chain Reference Table in Appendix C), are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120074","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed in 2004 with extranodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach followed by a 2011 diagnosis of DLBCL involving abdominal lymph nodes? See Discussion.","In 2004 a patient's extranodal DLBCL was treated with a partial gastrectomy at another facility. A recurrence of DLBCL was diagnosed in 2011 by a fine needle aspiration of abdominal lymph nodes. The patient presented to this facility for chemotherapy.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and diagnosis date to 2004. Per Rule M2, abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120073","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a 2011 diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis? See Discusson.","Patient presented with leukopenia, anemia and monoclonal gammopathy. A bone marrow biopsy in 2011 showed systemic mastocytosis [9741/3]. A subsequent shave biopsy of abdominal skin showed histologic features that were consistent with a diagnosis of mastocytosis. A later bone marrow biopsy was subsequently performed that showed progressive systemic mastocytosis.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. The Heme DB indicates the primary site for systemic mastocytosis is always coded to C421 [bone marrow].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120072","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a diagnosis of multifocal Langerhans cell histiocytosis with involvement of the bone, liver, spleen and retroperitoneum?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. Code the primary site to C419 [bone, NOS], assuming there are multiple bones involved in this case. If only one bone is involved, code the primary site to the specified bone.
In the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, it indicates the primary site may differ for LCH in the solitary disease and multisystem disease. This patient has multisystem disease with involvement of the bone, liver, spleen and retroperitoneum. The most common sites for multisystem involvement include three of the four above sites (bone, liver, and spleen).
Determine the primary site based on the knowledge of the usual sites of involvement for this disease, the actual sites of involvement for the case presented, and identifying which sites of involvement are likely metastatic and which are the potential primary sites. There are two potential primary sites of involvement: the bone and the retroperitoneum. Bone is a common site of involvement for LCH while the retroperitoneum is not. Code the primary site to C419 [bone, NOS] because multiple bones are involved for this patient and bone is the most common site for LCH based on the documentation in the Abstractor Notes.
The spleen and liver are typically not primary sites for this disease process. They become involved when there is multisystem involvement because they filter the blood. They are typically sites of metastatic involvement. This information will be added to the ABSTRACTOR NOTE section.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120071","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded and what rule applies if the patient has involvement of multiple organs and one lymph node chain with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.
","In 2011 the patient was diagnosed with a 15 cm mass involving the terminal ileum, cecum and adjacent mesentery. The pathology was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. A staging PET/CT revealed a mass at the base of tongue and a left cervical lymph node. The biopsy of the base of tongue also showed DLBCL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Apply rule PH22 to code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS].
While the pathology does not indicate that this particular case represents a B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable with features intermediate between DLBCL and Burkitt variant, in the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma it does indicate that its presentation, ""may have lesions in ileocecal region or jaws. Bone marrow and peripheral blood may be involved. Patients present with lymphadenopathy or mass lesions in extranodal site."" This patient does have involvement of two extranodal sites and involvement of regional lymph nodes for only one of those sites.
PH22 indicates one is to code the primary site to C77.9 [lymph nodes, NOS] when lymphoma is present in multiple organs and lymph nodes that are not regional for that organ and the origin cannot be determined even after consulting the physician. There are two extranodal sites of involvement and only one chain of lymph nodes is regional to one of those sites so this rule applies.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120070","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a bone marrow biopsy shows myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 (RAEB-2) and myelofibrosis? See Discussion.","Should the myelofibrosis be accessioned as a second primary? Or is it a descriptor of the MDS/RAEB-2? The multiple primaries calculator shows 9983/3 and 9961/3 represent two primaries.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary per Rule M2 which indicates you are to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9983/3 [refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 (RAEB-2)].
Per Appendix F, myelofibrosis, NOS, is NOT a synonym for primary myelofibrosis. Myelofibrosis, NOS, if not specified to be myelofibrosis, therefore, is not reportable.
Per PH29, code the specific histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology (MDS) and one specific histology (RAEB-2) AND the Multiple Primary Calculator confirms the specific histology and NOS histology are the same primary (which it does).
Myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS is a generic disease description. In most cases, NOS histology is only the provisional diagnosis; the physician will run further diagnostic procedures and look for various clinical presentations to identify a more specific disease. The more specific myelodysplastic syndromes are: refractory anemia; refractory neutropenia; refractory thrombocytopenia; refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts; refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia; refractory anemia with excess blasts; and refractory cytopenia of childhood. If the characteristics of a specific subtype of MDS develop later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120068","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the correct histology code for a diagnosis of mature B cell leukemia/lymphoma diagnosed only on a peripheral blood smear?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
After searching the Heme DB for the term , no B-cell leukemia/lymphoma NOS code is found. However, the diagnosis of B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma is found. This case scenario does not specify that this is a lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma; therefore, the histology code 9811/3 [B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] cannot be applied.
A subsequent search of the Heme DB for the term returns ""Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS"" [9591/3]. Under the Alternative Names section of the Heme DB, B-cell lymphoma, NOS, is a synonym for Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS. Therefore, the B-cell lymphoma NOS code [9591/3] is the most appropriate histology code to use for this case.
This will be added to the next revision of the Heme DB and Manual.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120067","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is the histology coded for a poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype arising in a papillary carcinoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as papillary carcinoma, poorly differentiated [8260/33].
The WHO classification lists grade III papillary carcinoma as one of the synonyms for poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
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 Histo rules because site specific rules have not been developed for this primary.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Per rule H13 ""phenotype"" is not a term used to code a more specific histology. Moving to Rule H14 the histology is coded 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma].
","2012" "20120066","Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and primary site coded if the patient has monomorphic B-cell post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder with features of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the intramuscular chest wall and right frontal lobe of the brain? See Discussion.","The patient is a 12 year old with a history of Fanconi anemia, status post stem cell transplant. In May, 2012 the patient was diagnosed with monomorphic B-cell PTLD with features of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M14, accession this is a single primary. Per PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown} and per PH1, code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].
Per Rule M14, abstract as a single primary when post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is diagnosed simultaneously with any B-cell lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma or plasmacytoma/myeloma.
Per PH1, code the histology of the accompanying lymphoma or plasmacytoma/myeloma when the diagnoses of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and any B-cell lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, or plasmacytoma/myeloma occur simultaneously.
Per PH27, code the primary site to C809 [unknown primary site] because there is no lymph node involvement, but there is involvement of two extranodal sites.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120065","MP/H Rules/Primary site: What is the primary site and histology for a focus of papillary thyroid cancinoma, follicular variant, arising in thyroid tissue of mature cystic teratoma of the ovary?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the primary site to ovary [C56.9] and the histology to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant [8340/3].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Refer to the 2012 SEER Manual for help to determine the primary site. This neoplasm is arising in a teratoma of the ovary. Per the 2012 SEER Manual, in this case the site is coded to ovary [56.9] because that is where the tumor originated. Although the teratoma contains thyroid tissue, it arose in the ovary. Teratomas are unusual in that they contain all three germ cell layers from which an embryo forms. It is not unusual to have malignancies that are usually primary to the thyroid, liver, brain, lung, etc., originate in a teratoma.
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 site specific rules have not been developed for this primary.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Code the histology as papillary carcinoma, follicular variant [8340/3].
","2012" "20120064","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis treated with several rounds of chemotherapy is reportable, what is the primary site?
","Patient was diagnosed with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis on blood and bone marrow biopsy. This was also referred to in the chart as hemophagocytosis and hemophagocytic syndrome. Hemophagocytic syndrome is listed in the Heme DB as 9724/3. The patient had several rounds of fairly aggressive chemotherapy. Would the correct primary site for histology 9724/3 be C421 [bone marrow], or C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]? See SINQ 20100113.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Hemophagocytic syndrome, also known as hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), is not reportable. Per Appendix F, HLH is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). It is a clinical syndrome associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, a child's diagnosis must state ""fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome"" to be reportable (9724/3). This is not the situation in this case.
""Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis"" is also listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120063","Reportability--Pancreas: Are neuroendocrine ""tumors"" reportable and are they synonymous with neuroendocrine ""carcinoma""? See Discussion.","Example: Pancreatic mass that probably represents a neuroendocrine tumor is staged as cT2N0M0.","According to the World Health Organization (WHO) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are malignant. They are reportable.
For pancreas primaries, code NET, G1 (well differentiated) to 8240/3; NET G2 (moderately differentiated) to 8249/3; and nonfunctional NET, GI or G2 to 8150/3.
The histology code for neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is 8246/3, large cell NEC is 8013/3 and small cell NEC is 8041/3.
","2012" "20120062","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of breast cancer in 2006 treated with bilateral mastectomies and in 2011 is found to have invasive carcinoma in ""breast tissue, right lumpectomy""? See Discussion.
","Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up.
In November 2011, the patient noted a ""lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00."" Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, ""Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer."" There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a ""recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer.""
Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, right breast cancer diagnosed in June 2006 and a subsequent right breast primary diagnosed in December 2011.
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 Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Accession two primaries, tumors diagnosed more than five (5) years apart are multiple primaries.
If the pathology report stated the tumor originated in residual breast tissue, then this is a new tumor and, therefore, a new primary per rule M5. If the pathology report stated the tumor arose in the chest wall and/or there is no designation of residual breast tissue, then this is a regional metastasis and not a new primary.
","2012" "20120061","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned and which multiple primary rule applies for a patient diagnosed with a carcinosarcoma of the left ovary and a serous carcinoma of the right ovary? See Discussion.
","The patient underwent a debulking surgery showing a 20.5 cm carcinosarcoma with focal areas of high grade serous carcinoma and extensive high grade stromal sarcoma in the left ovary. The right ovary showed only a high grade serous carcinoma with extensive involvement of the ovarian parenchyma but no sarcomatous elements. While carcinosarcoma is composed of both epithelial and non-epithelial elements, does the presence of a purely epithelial tumor in the contralateral ovary indicate these are separate primaries per rule M8?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, carcinosarcoma [8980/3] of the left ovary and serous carcinoma [8441/3] of the right ovary.
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). After determining the histology of each tumor (8980/3 and 8441/3), go to the Other Sites MP rules because ovary does not have site specific rules developed
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Review Table 1 (Paired Organs and Sites with Laterality) to determine whether ovary is a paired site. To locate Table 1, go to Other Site under the Terms & Definitions section of the manual. Ovary is listed as a paired site. Accession multiple primaries when there are tumors on both sides (right and left) of a site listed in Table 1 (Paired Organs and Sites with Laterality).
Carcinosarcoma [8980/3] is not an epithelial tumor of the ovary within the range of 8000-8799 and, therefore, Rule M7 does not apply.
","2012" "20120060","Primary Site/Reportability: What is the primary site and reportability status of a ""pancreatic endocrine neoplasm"" that arises in the heterotopic pancreas of the splenic hilum that is stated to be a ""well-differentiated endocrine tumor, uncertain behavior per the WHO classification""? See Discussion.","SINQ 20120035 states that well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms should be reported with histology code 8240/3. However, the pathology report provides the WHO Classification which states ""uncertain behavior."" Should this tumor still be reported as 8240/3?
If reportable, how is the primary site coded? The tumor arose in heterotopic pancreas (in the splenic hilum), which is pancreatic tissue found outside the usual anatomical location of the pancreas. Per the pathology report, the tumor did not invade the spleen. Should the primary site be coded to C48.1 [mesentery]? The patient is female and the coding schema for ""Peritoneum for Females"" would apply to the case. However, none of those CS extension codes seem to apply to this localized case.
","
This case is reportable. Code the primary site to C25.9 [pancreas, NOS] and the histology to 8240/3 [neuroendocrine tumor (NET), Grade 1].
Per the 2012 SEER Manual, code the site in which the primary tumor originated. This neoplasm arose in pancreatic tissue and will behave accordingly, even though this pancreatic tissue is not located in the usual place.
Pancreatic endocrine and neuroendocrine neoplasms are essentially the same thing. However, they are described in two different WHO classifications; the endocrine classification and the digestive system classification. The digestive system classification is more recent, and is preferred by our expert pathologist consultant. The term ""neuroendocrine"" is to be used now, rather than ""endocrine."" In the pancreas, ""well differentiated endocrine tumor"" is synonymous with ""neuroendocrine tumor (NET) Grade 1"" and is coded 8240/3.
","2012" "20120059","Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a ""right nipple skin"" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion.","In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a ""biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple"" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows ""no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis."" However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500.","Because the site is specifically stated to ""skin"" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.
If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5].
","2012" "20120058","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when the patient is diagnosed with an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) per a pathology report and is subsequently diagnosed clinically with a chronic neoplasm (chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma) less than 21 days later? See Discussion.","The patient was diagnosed with an extranodal DLBCL on a biopsy of the stomach. A bone marrow biopsy performed 16 days later showed no DLBCL, but demonstrated an abnormal CD5-positive B-cell population that was subsequently referred to as CLL/SLL by the physician. The peripheral blood was negative and showed only moderate thrombocytopenia.
Does rule M10 apply in this case? Abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary (DLBCL) as there was only one pathology specimen (stomach biopsy) proving DLBCL and the bone marrow did not definitively identify CLL/SLL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M11. Code the histology of one primary to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma], the acute neoplasm. Code the histology for the second primary to 9823/3 [chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma], the chronic neoplasm.
Per Rule M11, abstract as multiple primaries when both a chronic and acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or less than or equal to 21 days apart AND there is documentation of two pathology specimens, one confirming the chronic neoplasm (bone marrow biopsy) and one confirming the acute neoplasm (stomach biopsy).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120057","Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion.","The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, ""Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium."" Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule?","This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The ""in situ"" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a ""non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei.""
","2012" "20120056","First course treatment--Corpus Uteri: Should Arimidex be coded as hormone therapy for an endometrioid adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.","Per the SEER Manual, endometrial cancers may be treated with progesterone which is coded as hormone therapy for these primaries. As endometrioid adenocarcinomas are hormonally-dependent carcinomas, should an aromatase inhibitor or anti-estrogen agent also be coded as hormone therapy?","Arimidex has not been approved to treat endometrial cancer. It is not prescribed for pre-menopausal women. Clarify with the physician why the drug was being used. If the physician states Arimidex was given to reduce tumor burden, code as hormone therapy.
See the SEER*Rx interactive database, http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/
","2012" "20120055","Surgery of Primary Site--Kidney, renal pelvis: How do you code a laparoscopic renal mass core biopsy followed by cryoablation of the tumor? See Discussion.","The note under the local tumor destruction codes states ""No specimen sent to pathology from this surgical event 10-15."" The patient had a pathologic specimen submitted from his core biopsy, but this was not a tumor excision or excisional biopsy [codes 20, 26-27]. Is the correct surgery code 13 [cryosurgery] because the tumor was only ablated and not excised, or surgery code 23 [any combination of 20 or 26-27 with cryosurgery] because a pathology specimen was submitted?","Code for Surgery of Primary Site to 13 [Cryosurgery]. While the core biopsy provided a pathology specimen, it is not coded as surgery of the primary site.","2012" "20120054","Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: What is the histology and behavior code for a ""giant cell astrocytoma""? See Discussion.","The pathology report stated, ""The giant cell astrocytoma should be considered at least grade 3."" There is not a code in the ICD-O-3 for giant cell astrocytoma, NOS; there are only codes for astrocytoma, NOS [9400/3] and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma [9384/1].","Code the morphology as giant cell glioblastoma [9441/3]. Glioblastoma and astrocytoma are both types of astrocytic tumors per the Brain and CNS Terms and Definitions, Chart 1, in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual.","2012" "20120052","Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the histology code if the final diagnosis is ""non-Hodgkin lymphoma NOS,"" but after further genetic and immunohistochemistry studies were performed the pathology report diagnosis COMMENT section stated the immunohistochemistry findings were ""compatible with follicular lymphoma""? See Discussion","Ambiguous terminology is not to be used to code a more specific histology. However the immunohistochemistry results (the definitive diagnostic method for follicular lymphoma) seem to clarify the non-specific diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Ambiguous terms are not used to code a specific histology. This includes ambiguous terminology used as a result of immunophenotyping or genetic studies. However, a definitive clinical diagnosis can be used to code a more specific histology.
In this example, the histology is coded to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS [9591/3] because the pathology final diagnosis was non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS even though it was followed by further genetic and immunohistochemistry studies that were ""compatible with"" (ambiguous terminology) follicular lymphoma.
However, if there was a subsequent non-ambiguous clinical diagnosis, the histology would be coded to the more specific diagnosis. For example, if the pathology final diagnosis was non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS, and there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis of follicular lymphoma or the patient was treated for follicular lymphoma, then the histology should be coded to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma, NOS]. Document either of these in a text field to support the histology code chosen. Follicular lymphoma is a specific type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If you do have a confirmed diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, code that specific cell type per rule PH29.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120051","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code for a diagnosis of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as lobular carcinoma, in situ [8520/2].
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 Breast Histo rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU CARCINOMA ONLY module, Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology to lobular carcinoma in situ [8520/2] because this is the only histologic type identified.
Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a variant of lobular carcinoma which does not have an ICD-O-3 code. It is still a lobular carcinoma. The identification of the variants of lobular carcinoma was a relatively recent discovery and the information was not available when the 2007 MP/H Rules were written. All of the lobular variants will be included in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.
","2012" "20120050","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and what histology codes apply if a patient has a 1998 diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia and a recent clinical diagnosis of secondary myelofibrosis? See Discussion.","The patient has a history of essential thrombocythemia (ET) since 1998. This has been treated daily with aspirin. A recent bone marrow biopsy was consistent with myeloproliferative disorder with excess blasts, marked extensive reticulin marrow fibrosis with osteosclerosis, excess blasts (11%) in the marrow aspirate and peripheral blood. JAK2 mutation was present in a small minority of cells. The physician stated patient was, ""considered to have secondary myelofibrosis and was started on Jakafi.""","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, a secondary myelofibrosis is not a reportable case.
Secondary myelofibrosis is not listed as a synonym for primary myelofibrosis in the Heme DB. The term ""secondary myelofibrosis"" means that the myelofibrosis was caused by, in this case, the essential thrombocythemia.
The diagnosis ""consistent with myeloproliferative disorder"" is also not a new reportable diagnosis. ""Myeloproliferative disorder"" refers to a group of diseases (an NOS category) that includes essential thrombocythemia, which was originally diagnosed in 1998, prior to reportability for this disease type.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120049","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is polycythemia vera secondary to volume depletion reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Secondary polycythemia vera is not reportable. See Appendix F.
Primary polycythemia vera is a condition in which there is an overproduction of blood cells due to a neoplastic process. Secondary polycythemia vera is an over production of red blood cells caused by a co-morbidity, in this case, volume depletion.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120048","MP/H Rules/Primary site: Can you clarify how you interpreted the term ""synchronous"" to appropriately code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary tract] for SINQ 20110119 and did not use that code for SINQ 20100025 when both cases used MP/H Rule M8 to determine the number of primaries? See Discussion.","In SINQ 20100025 a patient was diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors over a year apart. Rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was left coded to the original primary site, C65.9 [renal pelvis]. In SINQ 20110119 a patient is diagnosed with multiple urinary system tumors within a month of each other, again rule M8 applies (single primary) and the primary site was coded to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS].
In both cases, rule M8 applies. However, the tumors were not diagnosed synchronously (e.g., one month apart in one case and greater than one year apart in the other). When the SINQ answer states, ""same time"" or ""synchronous"" does this mean during the same event? If not, what is the time range for ""same time"" or ""synchronous""?
Please clarify when it is appropriate to code the primary site to C68.9 [urinary system, NOS] for Rule M8 and when it is not.
","For the purpose of applying the MP/H rules, the term ""synchronous"" means that the two diagnoses occurred at the same time or less than or equal to 60 days apart.
The case in SINQ 20100025 was not synchronous. The first lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] occurred in 1/08 and the subsequent tumors were diagnosed in 5/09, more than one year apart. In this case, you do not go back to change the primary site code on the original abstract.
The case in SINQ 20110119 was diagnosed synchronously, the first lesion in the bladder [C67.9] was diagnosed in 11/09 and the second lesion in the renal pelvis [C65.9] was diagnosed in 12/09, less than 60 days apart. Because the lesions were synchronous, the primary site is coded urinary system, NOS [C68.9].
","2012" "20120045","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion.","PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.
CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.
MD states: ""stage IIE with invasion of vagina.""
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.
This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a ""mass"" in those nodal regions.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120044","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed with acute monocytic leukemia in 2009 and in 2011 has biopsy confirmed granulocytic sarcoma of the cerebellum? See Discussion.
","Is this a recurrence of the patient's leukemia? In 2011, the patient is found to have several masses in the cerebellum, biopsy confirmed granulocytic sarcoma. The physician stated this is an ""extramedullary relapse of leukemia."" The bone marrow biopsy in 2011 was negative.
","
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary per Rule M3. Code histology to 9891/3 [acute monocytic leukemia] diagnosed in 2009 and primary site to C421 [bone marrow].
Per Rule M3 a single primary is reported when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. Histology 9891/3 [acute monocytic leukemia] is listed as one of the histologies in the ""same lineage."" Myeloid sarcoma (9930/3) diagnosed simultaneously with or after acute myeloid leukemia (9861/3) or another leukemia of the myeloid lineage (9840/3, 9865/3-9867/3, 9869/3-9874/3, 9891/3, 9895/3-9898/3, 9910/3, 9911/3 and 9931/3).
NOTE: Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, granulocytic sarcoma is a synonym for myeloid sarcoma.
Per PH10, code the primary site C421 [bone marrow] and code the histology acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (9861/3) or any of the specific AML histologies (9840/3, 9865/3-9867/3, 9869/3-9874/3, 9891/3, 9895/3-9898/3, 9910/3, 9911/3 and 9931/3) when the diagnosis is myeloid sarcoma (9930/3) AND there is a simultaneous or previous diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120042","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if a pelvic mass biopsy is positive for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a mediastinal lymph node biopsy is positive for follicular lymphoma, grade 1? See Discussion.","CT guided core biopsy of pelvic mass is positive for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone marrow biopsy is negative. Mediastinoscopy with mediastinal and pretracheal nodes biopsy is positive for follicular lymphoma grade 1 of 2. The patient has a PET demonstrating positive extensive metastatic disease with nodes in neck, chest, abdomen/pelvis and bone involvement. Should the histology be coded 9591/3 [NHL, NOS] or 9695/3 [FL, grade 1]? Which rule applies?
The table of contents for the Hematopoietic Manual indicates Module 8 for these histologies, however, Module 8 rules do not seem to apply. Continuing on to Module 9, the first rule that applies is PH30. PH30 states use the Heme DB to determine primary site/histology. The Heme DB indicates these are separate primaries, but both histologies are B-cell lymphomas.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9695/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 1] per PH29.
Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma is synonym for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS and B-cell lymphoma, NOS.
Per PH29, one codes the histology when there is one non-specific histology (NHL, NOS) and one specific histology (FL, grade 1). You are also required to confirm the specific and the non-specific (NOS) histology represent the same primary using the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The calculator indicates these are the same primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120041","Primary site/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded if the patient presents with diffuse B cell lymphoma involving the nasopharynx and right maxillary sinus with bilateral cervical, right supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes? See Discussion.","There is one mass in the nasopharynx and right maxillary sinus and the site of origin cannot be determined for this diffuse B-cell lymphoma. The patient also has bilateral cervical, right supraclavicular and axillary lymph nodes.
Should the primary site be coded per Module 7 Rule PH25 because regional nodes are involved or Rule PH22 because both regional and distant nodes are involved? If rule PH22 is used, what is the primary site?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C119 [nasopharynx] per Rule PH25.
Per our subject matter expert, use Module 7 Rule PH25 to code the primary site to an organ (nasopharynx and maxillary sinus) because an organ(s) and its regional lymph nodes are involved. The distant lymph nodes are simply part of the staging (the lymphoma has progressed to another lymph node region).
Diffuse large B cell lymphoma originating in the oral cavity and maxillofacial region is rare, but documented. The most common sites for this rare neoplasm are Waldeyer ring, tonsils, nasopharynx, base of tongue, and palatine tonsil. There are also rare cases of diffuse large B cell lymphoma originating in the maxillary sinus. The percentage of cases arising in the nasopharynx is greater than those originating in the maxillary sinus.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120040","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the term myelodysplastic disorder a reportable term?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Myelodysplastic disorder is a synonym for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). If no further workup is done or no additional information can be found, code the histology of myelodysplastic disorder to 9989/3 [MDS] for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later.
Refer to the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, Abstractor Notes for MDS. Myelodysplastic (disorder) syndrome is a NOS term. Usually when this diagnosis is made, the physician will conduct further tests to determine a more specific disease in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms group. Other specific histologies include: refractory anemia with unilineage dysplasia, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia, refractory anemia with excess blasts, myelodysplastic syndrome with del(5q), childhood myelodysplastic syndrome. If a more specific disease is diagnosed, code to that specific neoplasm.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120039","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site and heme rule applies when a PET scan shows bilateral renal masses, hypermetabolic liver lesions and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, a right kidney biopsy was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the bone marrow biopsy was negative? See Discussion.
","Patient has a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). February 2011 abdomen/pelvis x-ray showed development of bilateral renal masses. April 2011 PET scan showed intense areas of hypermetabolic activity corresponding to known bilateral renal masses, new hypermetabolic liver lesions, as well as left upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. All findings are worrisome for malignancy. March 2011 right kidney mass biopsy was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Bone marrow biopsy was negative for lymphoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH25, code the primary site of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma to C649 (kidneys) and laterality to 4 (bilateral). Per PH25, code the primary site to the organ when a lymphoma is present in an and that . This patient had involvement of an organ (bilateral kidneys) as well as regional lymph nodes for that organ. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are regional for the kidney.
The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is an acute transformation of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Because the DLBCL occurred more than 21 days after the CLL, it is a new primary per Rule M10.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120038","Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is Monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) reportable? If so, what is the correct histology code?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Appendix F, monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) is not reportable.
Some papers point out that a lymphocyte count less than five thousand is equivalent to monoclonal B-lymphocytosis of uncertain significance (MLUS) or monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL). A lymphocyte count of five to thirty thousand could be smoldering chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The diagnosis of MLUS is a benign process that does not meet the criteria for CLL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120037","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site code for a primary effusion lymphoma if the patient has multiple regions that are positive (e.g., pleural and pericardial effusion and the pleural fluid) for lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB, primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) is unusual in that the majority of cases arise in body cavities, such as the pleural, pericardial, and peritoneal cavities. Because there are no ICD-O-3 codes for the pleural space, pericardium, or peritoneal cavity, code the primary site to pleura C384 when the neoplasm arises in the pleural cavity, to pericardium C380 when it occurs in the pericardium, and to peritoneal cavity C482 when it occurs in the peritoneum.
Typically only one body cavity is involved. However, if multiple regions are positive for PEL as in this case, code the primary site to C809 per Rule PH27. Rule PH27 indicates one is to code the to primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician in the medical record that he/she that the lymphoma in an
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120036","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C779 or C809 when a patient is diagnosed at another facility with mantle cell lymphoma and the staging bone marrow biopsy performed at this facility is negative? There is no available information concerning where the lymphoma originated.","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per PH Rule22, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS].
Rule PH22 is a default rule for lymphomas that is used when there is no other information regarding the primary site and the Heme DB does not indicate a primary site under its Primary Site(s) section. Rule PH27, code the primary site to unknown [C809], does not apply. Only use C809 [unknown] as the primary site when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120035","Reportability--Pancreas: What is the histology code if well differentiated pancreatic endocrine neoplasms (PanNETs) are reportable?
","","
Pancreatic (neuro)endocrine neoplasms (PanNETs) are reportable. The correct histology code is 8240/3. The grade is coded as 1 [well differentiated].
","2012" "20120034","
Primary site--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site to be coded if a clinician used an MRI to diagnose a left cerebellar venous angioma? See Discussion.
","According to the WHO Classification of Brain/CNS Tumors, code 9122/0 (venous angioma) does not appear under tumors of the cerebellum (C716).
","Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490. The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA).
","2012" "20120033","Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and a bone marrow biopsy performed on 12/4/2009 shows primary myelofibrosis? See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia in 2007 and was treated with Hydrea. The 2009 bone marrow biopsy showed primary myelofibrosis which the physician states is a transition from the essential thrombocythemia. The Heme DB calls this two primaries.
","This is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] diagnosed in 2007. The 2010 Heme DB and Manual should not have been used to determine the number of primaries in this case. The Heme DB applies only to cases diagnosed 2010 and later.
In order to determine the number of primaries, use the rules in place at the time of the subsequent 2009 diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] followed by a diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis [9961/3] is a single primary.
","2012" "20120032","MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is the histology coded for an invasive melanoma stated to have a ""superficial spreading growth pattern""? See Discussion.
","Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a ""growth pattern."" The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term ""pattern"" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term ""growth pattern"" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?
","Code the histology as superficial spreading melanoma [8743/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.
Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type, superficial spreading in this case. The subtype of this invasive melanoma is ""superficial spreading.""
A change will be made to Rule 9 in next update to indicate ""growth pattern"" can be used to describe an invasive histology.
","2012" "20120030","MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as ""malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type"" but the under the ""cell type"" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists ""cell type: epithelioid""? See Discussion.
","The MP/H rules do not address the concept of ""cell type"" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the ""cell type"" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?
Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?
","Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.
Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.
The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.
","2012" "20120029","Primary site--Lung: What is the code for primary site if a small cell carcinoma presents as mediastinal masses?","","
Code the primary site to main bronchus [C340].
Primary small cell carcinoma in the thymus/mediastinum is rare. A bronchial lesion with extension into the mediastinum is much more likely. In a case like this, it is difficult to be sure exactly where the tumor arose, however, it is recommended the default site be the main bronchus when there is no information to the contrary.
","2012" "20120027","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded if a patient has two frank invasive adenocarcinomas in one segment of the colon and multiple tubular adenomas and hyperplastic polyps throughout the entire colon without a diagnosis of familial polyposis [FAP]? See Discussion.","
Does Rule H19 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8221 [adenocarcinoma in multiple adenomatous polyps] because there are multiple polyps (number not specified) throughout the colon? Does tumor have to arise in at least one of the adenomas in order to apply Rule H19?
Or, does Rule H22 apply which indicates the histology is coded to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because the adenocarcinomas are both frank invasive adenocarcinomas and not adenocarcinoma arising in an adenoma?
","Code the histology as adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, 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) and go to the Colon Histology rules to determine the histology code for this case. The Module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H15. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H15 to Rule H24. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. In this case, the only histology present was adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].
Rules H17 through H21 do not apply in this case because there is no malignancy arising in any of the adenomas or polyps scattered throughout the colon.
","2012" "20120025","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma to the brain in 2003 and subsequently was diagnosed with meningeal melanomatosis? See Discussion.","Meningeal melanomatosis has a separate ICD-O-3 code, but is also a very rare form of melanoma.","This is a single primary coded to the site of the original melanoma. The brain and meninges are both metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This case was sent to the melanoma physician specialists. The physician stated that, in this case, the meningeal involvement is secondary to the brain involvement (metastatic spread). Whenever brain metastases are diagnosed, the meningeal spread is metastatic.
","2012" "20120024","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted and what histology codes are used when a patient has two tumors, one reported as duct and lobular carcinoma and another reported as pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma? See Discussion.
","The pathology report indicated two tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. One tumor has duct and lobular carcinoma and the other tumor has pleomorphic lobular and duct carcinoma. Per a web search, pleomorphic lobular carcinoma is a recently recognized subtype of lobular cancer.
According to the MP/H Rules, Breast Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Tables and Illustrations, ""pleomorphic carcinoma"" is a specific type of duct carcinoma [8022/3]. This is not listed as a combined histology in Table 3. Should this be abstracted as a single primary per Rule M10, with the histology coded 8523/3 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma]? Or should this be abstracted as two primaries per Rule M12, with the histologies coded as 8022/3 [pleomorphic carcinoma] and 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma]?
","This is a single primary with the histology coded as infiltrating duct and infiltrating lobular carcinoma [8522/3].
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, start with the Breast Multiple Primary Rules because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.
Start at Rule M4 because this patient has multiple tumors in the same breast. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Abstract a single primary as tumors that are lobular [8520] and intraductal or duct are a single primary.
Use the Breast Histology Coding Rules to determine the correct histology for these multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. Start at Rule H20 as there were multiple tumors present but it is a single primary. Code the histology to 8522 [duct and lobular] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.
The Note for Rule M10 indicates Table 1 and Table 2 are used to identify specific intraductal and duct carcinomas. Referring to Table 2 (Duct 8500/3 and Specific Duct Carcinomas) note that pleomorphic carcinoma is listed as a specific type of duct carcinoma. Pleomorphic is a word that describes the cellular appearance rather than a specific histology. It is coded when that is the only description/diagnosis given (pleomorphic carcinoma/pleomorphic duct carcinoma). In this case, both duct and lobular are describing the actual histologic types. Ignore the term ""pleomorphic"" and code the actual histologic descriptors, ductal and lobular. We will make appropriate changes to the breast rules in the MP/H revisions so this distinction is clear.
","2012" "20120021","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the terms ""chronic"" and ""acute"" used to help determine the number of primaries to be abstracted and what rule applies when a diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is followed two years later by a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, grade 3A of 3? See Discussion.
","7/31/08 Biopsy of the left supraclavicular lymph node diagnosed Stage IIIB DLBCL [9680/3]
10/14/10 Biopsy of a right supraclavicular lymph node diagnosed follicular lymphoma, grade 3A or 3 [9698/3].
Which multiple primary rule applies to determine the number of primaries to report? Is Rule M4 ignored? Does Rule M13 apply because follicular lymphoma normally transforms to DLBCL? Is this still a transformation because the follicular lymphoma came AFTER the DLBCL (the ""acute"" reverted to ""chronic"")? Or does Rule M15 apply, and the Multiple Primaries Calculator should be used to determine the number of primaries to report?
Are ""transformations"" the acute phases of the more chronic disease? The Heme Manual and previous training sessions do not make this apparent.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M13. Code the histology for the 7/31/08 diagnosis to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and the code the histology for the 10/14/2010 diagnosis to 9698/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 3A of 3]. Rule M13 applies to this case because the neoplasm was originally diagnosed in the blast or acute phase (DLBCL) and reverted to a less aggressive or chronic phase (follicular lymphoma) after treatment.
Per the ""Transformations to"" section in the Heme DB for follicular lymphoma, grade 3 transforms to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. This means that the follicular lymphoma is the chronic neoplasm and that DLBCL is the acute neoplasm. In this case, the chronic neoplasm was diagnosed after the acute neoplasm was diagnosed and treated (with chemotherapy).
Do not Stop at Rule M4 because diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma (both NHL's) were not present in the same node(s) AT THE SAME TIME.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "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 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 uses the expression ""ductal (tubular)"" as an 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, multiple primaries.
If the pathologist uses the expression ""ductal (tubular)"" as an 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].
","2012" "20120019","Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How are these fields coded for breast cases diagnosed 2011 and later when the patient has a simple mastectomy with removal of seven sentinel lymph nodes? See Discussion.","Per SINQ 20091076, the correct codes would be 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only] when the patient has any number of sentinel nodes removed, as long as they are designated as sentinel nodes. Under the mastectomy codes in the 2011 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Breast Surgery Codes, the SEER Note states that code 41 [simple mastectomy] includes the removal of one to three axillary lymph nodes. A simple mastectomy with four or more axillary lymph nodes is coded to 51. Does the lymph node count for code 51 include both sentinel and axillary lymph nodes? Or does code 51 refer to strictly the count of axillary lymph nodes, separate from the count of sentinel lymph node(s) biopsied?","First, make sure that the seven lymph nodes removed were actually designated to be sentinel nodes and not a combination of sentinel nodes and other regional nodes. Code sentinel nodes only when the nodes are stated to be sentinel nodes or when the surgical procedure includes the injection of dye to identify sentinel nodes.
If all seven nodes removed are sentinel nodes, follow the instructions in SINQ 20091076 and assign codes 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only].
The SEER Note does not pertain to nodes designated as sentinel nodes.
","2012" "20120018","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded if a lumpectomy reveals multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ spanning an area of 0.9-1.2 cm with close margins and a subsequent mastectomy reveals only a single focus of lobular carcinoma in situ measuring 0.2 cm in the UOQ, remote from all surgical margins? See Discussion.","Does the general instruction apply in this case that indicates the histology is coded from the most representative tumor specimen resulting in the histology coded to 8500/2 [DCIS]? Or is the histology coded to 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] per Rule H28 because there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma [8500]?","Code the histology to duct and lobular carcinoma in situ [8522/2].
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 had multiple foci of DCIS and a separate, single focus of LCIS. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Tumors that are lobular and duct are a single primary.
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 because the patient has multiple foci of DCIS and LCIS. Code the histology as 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.
The DCIS and LCIS are separate tumors. The DCIS was removed by the lumpectomy and the LCIS by the mastectomy. The most representative specimen for the DCIS is the lumpectomy. The most representative specimen for the LCIS is the mastectomy. Both pathology reports must be used in this case to determine the histology.
","2012" "20120017","Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20110095 states that ""low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin"" is reportable. However, in this case ""carcinoid tumor"" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression ""carcinoid tumor"" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability?
","This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3].
Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy.
","2012" "20120016","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""amyloidosis"" reportable if the medical oncologist states that it is a malignancy? See Discussion.
","Amyloidosis is not reportable per the Commission on Cancer guidelines. However, the medical oncologist at this facility states that it is a malignancy. The oncologist presented a case at Cancer Conference and indicated the patient has Stage III disease. Should this case be accessioned?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Amyloidosis, NOS is not reportable. It is listed in Appendix F of the Heme Manual on the Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
Amyloidosis (AL) is term that refers to a group of conditions that include benign conditions (e.g., found in the pancreas of type II diabetes patients and in the brain lesions of Alzheimer patients) as well as in malignant diseases (e.g., AL found in multiple myeloma and ACal (calcitonin) found in medullary carcinoma of the thyroid). Amyliodosis, NOS is not a term that equates to a malignant diagnosis.
Check the medical record to see if this disease process is designated as either AL or ACal. There should be a malignant diagnosis such as multiple myeloma or medullary carcinoma of the thyroid in such cases rather than simply a diagnosis of amyloidosis. The malignancy needs to be coded, not the symptoms of the disease process.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120015","Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How does one determine and code a clinical diagnosis for the diagnostic confirmation in patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.
","The Heme DB originally stated the Definitive Diagnostic Method is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] while an updated version stated it can coded as a clinical diagnosis or it can be based on the results of a bone marrow biopsy or a genetic test. The Abstractor Note section specifies this is a diagnosis of exclusion. According to a recent Web-based training seminar, the JAK-2 diagnosis would be coded 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study]. Doesn't the Definitive Diagnostic Method of a clinical diagnosis/diagnosis of exclusion mean that the diagnostic confirmation of essential thrombocythemia will always be coded as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]? Many people use code 3 for positive bone marrow biopsy and genetics (JAK-2), but the bone marrow is usually reported as only borderline or is stated to be abnormal for a person's age.
","
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the diagnostic confirmation to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] in this case.
Per the Heme DB, JAK-2 is only positive in about 50% of essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients. In addition, a positive JAK-2 test does not identify the type of myeloproliferative disease (MPN) the patient has, only the presence or absence of the JAK-2 mutation.
The WHO guidelines for diagnosing ET are: elevated platelet count over months and the elimination of other causes for an elevated platelet count (such as polycythemia vera (PV), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), idiopathic myelofibrosis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)); the absence of Philadelphia chromosome, BCR/ABL fusion gene; and del(5q), t(3;3)(q21;26),inv(3)(q21q26)).
Subsequently, the physician rules out any underlying causes of thrombocytosis such as an inflammation or infection, other neoplasms, and prior splenectomy.
Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of exclusion. In other words, all other causes for the elevated platelet count have been excluded. The physician assembles the information from the blood counts, bone marrow and JAK-2 testing along with the information that excludes all other diseases and makes a clinical diagnosis of ET.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120014","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report final diagnosis is ""plasma cell dyscrasia, consistent with multiple myeloma"" when no further work-up is performed because the patient either refuses additional testing or dies?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of multiple myeloma on the pathology report.
The instruction ""Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology"" is intended to be used when there is a reportable and reportable stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was ""Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera"" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120013","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2011 diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis be accessioned as a reportable case if the patient had a disease free interval between the 2011 diagnosis and when the patient was initially diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis prior to 2010? See Discussion.
","The patient was diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis as a child when the disease was not reportable [9751/1]. The patient was disease free until a recurrence in 2011. Langerhans cell histiocytosis is reportable if diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later [9751/3]. The Heme Manual states this is a single primary, but the behavior has changed from borderline to malignant since the initial diagnosis.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Do not accession the 2011 diagnosis of Langerhans cell histiocytosis. In the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB is indicates this is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 and later. However, this patient was initially diagnosed prior to 2010 when it was not a reportable disease process.
The histology code for Langerhans cell histiocytosis has not changed over time. The histology code for cases of Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed prior to 2010 was also 9751 per the ICD-O-3. The only change since 2010 was in the behavior code for this disease. It changed from borderline [/1] to malignant [/3]. The current disease represents a recurrence of the previous Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Per the Multiple Primary rules, Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary. The original diagnosis was made before the disease was reportable; do not report the disease recurrence or progression as a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120012","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report shows diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arising in a small cell lymphoma - Richter's transformation, also compatible with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)].
For CLL (and CLL/SLL), Richter's transformation represents when CLL changes into DLBCL. In this case, there was a biopsy that demonstrated a diagnosis of the chronic disease (CLL/SLL) transforming (Richter's transformation) into an acute disease DLBCL.
Per Rule M8, one is instructed to abstract the acute neoplasm as a single primary when both a chronic (CLL/SLL) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)) are diagnosed simultaneously there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy or tissue biopsy.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120011","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is there a timing rule used to recode histology should a more specific diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) be confirmed after an initial diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)? How many primaries are abstracted if RAEB subsequently evolves toward an acute myeloid leukemia? See Discussion.
","Facility A: 4/8/2010 Bone Marrow biopsy: Features most compatible with MDS. (No treatment administered.) 7/2/2010 Peripherial Blood: Transforming Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). COMMENT: Clonal abnormality compatible with MDS/acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in all metaphases examined. (Still no treatment administered.)
Facility B: 10/6/2010 Patient now presents for evaluation and treatment. Patient started on Vidaza. 10/07/10 Bone Marrow biopsy: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) COMMENT: Evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes considered; cytogenetic analysis reveals abnormalities most compatible with MDS and/or AML.
Based on the Heme Manual and DB, the 4/8/2010 diagnosis of MDS, NOS (9989/3) is the first primary. Should the 7/2/2010 diagnosis of transforming MDS to AML (9861/3) be a new, second primary?
Based on the Abstractor Note for MDS in the Heme DB for MDS, ""If the characteristics of a specific subtype of MDS develop later in the course of the disease, change the histology code to the more specific diagnosis."" Based on this note, should the MDS histology code [9989/3] be changed to refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB-2) [9983/3] from the biopsy taken on 10/7/2010 (one day after treatment began) that revealed RAEB-2 with evolution towards AML?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
There is no time limit set to update histology to a more specific disease process if a patient has an initial NOS histology identified. Unlike solid tumors, hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms may take a year or more to manifest the specific disease. This is simply a part of the ""disease characteristics.""
Abstract a single primary per M2, a single histology represents a single primary. Code the histology to 9983/3 [MDS/RAEB-2.]
The Heme DB guidelines were interpreted correctly. MDS/RAEB can transform to AML and would be two separate primaries there had also been a reportable diagnosis of AML. The 7/2/2010 peripheral blood showed MDS and a clonal abnormality that was ""compatible with MDS/AML."" The 10/7/2010 bone marrow biopsy showed only RAEB-2 with ""evolution towards AML with myelodysplasia related changes."" Ambiguous terminology is only used to help determine reportability; it not used to code a more specific histology. In this case, there was only ambiguous terminology used to describe the AML.
It is important to understand the implication of incorrectly assigning histology codes for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasm using ambiguous terminology. Using this case as an example, the patient was not treated until three months after the 7/2/2010 peripheral blood diagnosis of MDS compatible with MDS/AML. The medical literature indicates that AML, if left untreated, is usually fatal within 1-3 months. The treatment given 10/6/2010, 3 months after the ""compatible with"" diagnosis, was a drug used to treat MDS and not AML.
The other issue with this case is that the bone marrow examination, which is more reliable than peripheral blood, showed only ""evolution towards AML."" This means that the bone marrow is exhibiting the changes seen in the final stages of MDS prior to progression to AML. Wait for a definitive diagnosis of AML and/or treatment for AML before abstracting the second primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120010","Multiple primaries/Behavior--Ovary: What is the diagnosis date and histology for the primary(ies) abstracted for a patient with a mucinous cystic borderline tumor of the ovary in 2003 and a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma in 2011? See Discussion.","The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.
Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.
The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, ""recurrent ovarian cancer.""
","This is a single primary. The diagnosis date is coded to 2003 and the histology is mucinous cystadenocarcinoma [8470/3]. The bone, abdominal tissue and omentum are metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
This is a case where an invasive or microinvasive element was missed in the original pathology. Because the entire tumor was not sectioned and placed on slides, the pathologist used their expertise when sectioning and selecting tissue to be examined. It is not a matter of poor judgment, just a fact that it is impossible to review the tissue from the entire tumor. The behavior must be changed to malignant [/3].
","2012" "20120009","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when the pathology report states the morphologic features and immunophenotype of a low grade B-cell lymphoma are most compatible with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28 which states that one is to code the histology when the diagnosis is
There is only one non-specific histology code mentioned, low grade B-cell lymphoma. This term is synonymous with B-cell lymphoma, NOS.
Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, when comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9671/3 [lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma], it is the same primary. When comparing the histology 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS] and 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma], it is the same primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120008","MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Ovary: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient was diagnosed with ovarian serous carcinoma four years ago and currently has sacral and pelvic masses positive for serous carcinoma on biopsy? Should this be disease progression or a new primary? See Discussion.
","Should this be a new primary per the MP/H Rules (Other Sites, Rule M10) because the diagnoses were made more than one year apart? Or is the new disease metastasis? The pathologist did not compare the subsequent mass biopsies with the original pathology. Is a pathologist's comparison of slides the only criteria for determining recurrent disease? This case seems to fit the definition of metastatic disease rather than a recurrence, and therefore would not be a new primary.
","Accession a single primary, the original ovarian serous carcinoma. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.
Metastases: When cancer cells appear in other nodes or organs that are not the primary site they are metastatic cells. Discontinuous (separate from the primary tumor) masses or cells in regional lymph nodes, distant lymph nodes, or distant sites are always metastases. In this case, the sacral and pelvic masses are distant metastases. The pathologist does not have to compare cells to the original tumor slides; the discontinuous tumor mass/cells in any site other than the primary site are metastases.
Recurrence: For a disease to recur there are several criteria that must be met. First and most important, the patient must have had a disease-free interval (a tumor cannot recur if it has always been present). The other criteria are: the ""new tumor"" has to occur in the original primary site, it must be the same histology as the original tumor, AND must meet the timing requirements in the MPH rules for that organ/site.
","2012" "20120004","Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for a malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code grade to 6 [B-cell] for the histology malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant [9680/3]. Under the Definition section for histology code 9680/3 it states there are morphologic variants of the disease: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.
Rule G3 in the Heme Manual confirms the grade listed in the Heme DB under its Grade section for the histology 9680/3. While the patient presented with a variant of DLBCL that is T-cell/histiocyte rich, it is still a B-cell phenotype. The grade is coded accordingly.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120002","Histology/Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are histology and diagnostic confirmation coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of lymphoma but a pathologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasm, NOS? See Discussion.
","This patient had CT scans showing extensive bilateral retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy suspicious for lymphoma and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Thin core biopsies were done of the left axillary lymph nodes and immunohistology pathology was read as malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis. Flow cytometry analysis of the sample shows no definitive or sufficient CD45+ events for informative analysis. Karyotype analysis could not be performed on this specimen due to inadequate sample. FISH analysis using IGH break apart probe showed no evidence of clonal rearrangement in limited number of cells available for analysis. The physician's diagnosis is probable lymphoma, no further workup felt necessary because patient would not tolerate chemotherapy anyway and hospice was felt most appropriate care for patient.
The definitive diagnostic method for lymphoma, NOS is histologic confirmation, but the only histologic confirmation was of ""malignant neoplasm with extensive necrosis."" Should the histology and diagnostic confirmation be coded as lymphoma, NOS [9590/3] and imaging without microscopic confirmation [7] or malignancy, NOS [8000/3] and positive histology [1]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9590/3 [malignant lymphoma, NOS] and the diagnostic confirmation to 7 [radiology and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. Per the Diagnostic Confirmation Coding Instructions for Heme and Lymphatic Neoplasms, use code 1 when ONLY the biopsy was used to diagnose the specific histology. The biopsy only confirmed a malignancy; the scan confirmed the specific diagnosis of lymphoma.
Note that a clinical diagnosis can be a definitive diagnostic method for malignant lymphoma, NOS. In this case, the biopsy was inadequate and a more specific diagnosis could not be made by histology. Because no further work-up was pursued, this NOS diagnosis of malignant lymphoma was a clinical diagnosis only.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20120001","Multiple primaries/Recurrence--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2001 and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the larynx in 2011? See Discussion.","Does the medical oncologist's statement that this is a second malignancy, rather than a recurrence, given the length of the disease-free interval, affect the number of primaries abstracted?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract a single primary per Rule M2; a single histology is a single primary diagnosed. The histology code for both the 2001 and 2011 diagnoses is 9680/3[diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Case is coded as diagnosed in 2001.
The hematopoietic physician experts say that the issue with lymphomas is that the patient may be disease-free then recur years later. Even though years have passed, this is still a recurrence or relapse. Currently, there are no molecular markers that are able to distinguish ""new primaries"" from recurrences. There are also no established criteria for timing rules that could be used to determine a new primary from a recurrence.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2012" "20110155","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of ""MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera"" 18 years after a diagnosis of ""thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis""? See Discussion","Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.
Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.
Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.
On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.
An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].
The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.
The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, ""evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera."" The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, ""about 18 years ago.""
According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of ""polycythemia"" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of ""JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera"" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110154","Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of ""ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion"" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3?
","","Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive].
""Stromal invasion"" means the cancer is invasive. ""Stroma"" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive.
","2011" "20110153","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is macrocytic anemia reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Macrocytic anemia is not reportable. Anemia refers to a condition of having a low count of red blood cells. The term ""macrocytic"" refers to the enlarged size of the red blood cells. Macrocytic anemia is usually caused by vitamin deficiencies, alcohol use, medications or thyroid disorders.
See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110151","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""common variable immunodeficiency"" which is also known as acquired hypogammaglobulinemia reportable?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Common variable immunodeficiency (acquired hypogammaglobulinemia) is not a reportable condition.
Common variable immunodeficiency represents a group of approximately 150 primary immunodeficiencies that have a common set of symptoms but different underlying causes, both benign and malignant.
The case is not reportable unless this immunodeficiency diagnosis is accompanied by a diagnosis of a cancer or a reportable hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasm.
See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110150","Ambiguous Terminology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: As ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology for Heme & Lymphoid primaries, how is the histology coded when a patient has a clinical diagnosis of ""consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome""? See Discussion.","The physician states the ""patient's clinical picture certainly is most consistent with MDS."" Several FISH probes were performed on peripheral blood, specifically looking for the 5q minus syndrome as well as other molecular rearrangements to suggest or confirm MDS. These studies came back as normal. The initial bone marrow also came back negative. The physician then states, ""The suspicion was that this represented a myelodysplastic syndrome despite the normal cytogenetics. Additional studies performed on the date of the clinic visit included the FISH for the 5q minus syndrome as well as CD59 to exclude PNH. Both of these were negative. Therefore, at this juncture, the patient has a macrocytic anemia not yet requiring transfusion support with a normal white count and an elevated platelet count and a hypercellular bone marrow. This is certainly consistent with a myelodysplastic syndrome.""
Per coding guidelines, ambiguous terminology is not used to code histology, only for reportability. What is the histology code for this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology as Myelodysplastic syndrome, unclassifiable [9989/3].
Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability). While ambiguous terminology is generally not used to code a specific histology, it can be used to code histology if it is the .
The statement that you do not use ambiguous terms to code histology is intended for those NOS histologies with an ambiguous term being used to describe the subtype. For example, if the physician states this is a myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS, refractory thrombocytopenia. The correct histology would be MDS, NOS [9989/3] and not refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110149","Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is ""plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma"" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.
","Pathologists often use the diagnosis ""plasma cell dyscrasia"" followed by an ambiguous term such as ""consistent with"" or ""favors"" with a more specific histology such as ""plasma cell myeloma."" Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?
If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is ""plasma cell myeloma"" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?
How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].
Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).
NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.
Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was ""Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera"" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110148","First course treatment/Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned and how is treatment coded when follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009 is treated with CHOP and a subsequent December 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is treated with chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant? See Discussion.","A follicular lymphoma [9690/3] involving multiple lymph nodes was diagnosed on 12/2/2009. The patient had no bone marrow involvement and was treated with CHOP as first course treatment. In October 2010, the patient was put on maintenance Rituxan but disease progression was noted in November 2010. A biopsy of a mesenteric lymph node in December 2010 showed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3]. The patient subsequently had chemotherapy and an autologous bone marrow transplant.
According to the Multiple Primaries Calculator in the Heme DB, the DLBCL is a new primary but the physician calls the diagnosis of DLBCL a transformation from the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in December 2009.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries: follicular lymphoma [9690/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M10. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Record the CHOP as the first course of treatment for the follicular lymphoma because this was the only treatment given for the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) prior to the transformation to the acute neoplasm (DLBCL). Record the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant as first course treatment for the DLBCL.
As noted above, follicular lymphoma does transform to DLBCL. This ""transformation"" is actually a new disease. Follicular lymphoma is a disease in which the lymph nodes have a prominent follicular pattern; DLBCL is a disease with diffuse proliferation of large lymphoid cells. While it is true that follicular lymphoma will transform to DLBCL, this transformation indicates it becomes a different entity.
The DLBCL is coded as a second primary for several reasons: to determine the incidence of follicular lymphomas transforming to DLBCL; survival time can be calculated for the diagnosis of the more aggressive DLBCL; death will be attributed to the DLBCL (for mortality statistics) and not the follicular lymphoma
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110147","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded when no bone marrow examination is performed but the peripheral blood flow cytometry listed several differential diagnoses and the physician states the diagnosis is small lymphocytic lymphoma? See Discussion.","The peripheral blood flow cytometry results state, ""findings consistent with a small mature B-cell neoplasm, differential - marginal zone lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, and atypical CLL."" The physician states the diagnosis is ""SLL."" No bone marrow examination or CT scan was done to assess whether the patient had lymphadenopathy.
Per Rule PH5, if the diagnosis is B-cell CLL/SLL and peripheral blood is involved, the histology is coded to B-CLL/SLL [9823/3]. Should the primary site and histology be coded to bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3] per Rule PH5 despite the physician's diagnosis of SLL [9670/3]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary and the primary site and histology is coded as bone marrow [C421] and CLL/SLL [9823/3]. The code 9670/3 [malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytes, NOS] used for SLL is now obsolete.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB indicates that SLL is, ""usually associated with CLL and coded CLL/SLL 9823/3. Small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is almost identical to CLL. A somewhat arbitrary distinction is drawn between them based on the relative degree of marrow and nodal involvement and the numbers of circulating cells.""
Per the Definition section in the Heme DB it states that, ""CLL by definition involves blood and bone marrow at time of diagnosis."" Check the PRIMARY SITE and MODULE RULE sections that indicate the primary site is C421, Rule PH5. Per this rule, code the primary site bone marrow (C421) and code the histology B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) [9823/3] when the diagnosis is B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) AND peripheral blood is involved (the bone marrow may also be involved).
This may appear to contradict the physician's diagnosis, but the 2008 WHO no longer codes CLL and SLL as separate neoplasms, rather one neoplasm, CLL/SLL, which reflects the actual neoplastic process. Those patients with SLL usually manifest CLL during the neoplastic process and those patients with CLL usually manifest SLL during the neoplastic process. WHO recommends coding to CLL/SLL rather than coding two primaries when the other neoplasm manifests.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110146","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed in 2003 with malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular in the inguinal lymph nodes and was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma (by a neck lymph node biopsy) involving the neck and mediastinal lymph nodes?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary: malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular [9691/3] diagnosed in 2003. The following describes how this determination was made.
This case is one in which the terminology for follicular lymphoma has changed over time. In 2003, follicular lymphoma was classified as small cleaved cell, large cell, or mixed cell (both small cleaved and large cell). Those designations are no longer used. This disease process is currently classified as follicular lymphoma NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3. The change was simply a change in classification/terminology.
Appendix A, Table A3 (Obsolete Terms as Defined in ICD-O-3, Lymphoid Neoplasm Obsolete Terms) should be used to determine the current term when an obsolete term is known/given. Per the Table, ""Mixed cell type follicular lymphoma"" is currently known as ""Follicular lymphoma, grade 2"" and the correct histology code is 9691/3. This is the correct histology for the 2003 primary.
Per Rule M15, the histologies must be check in the Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries. Enter [follicular lymphoma, grade 2 (malignant lymphoma, mixed cell type, follicular)] for Histology Code 1 and [follicular lymphoma, NOS] for Histology Code 2. The result is ""Same Primary."" As a result, accession a single 2003 diagnosed primary with the histology follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] when the patient is subsequently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma, NOS.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110145","MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a ""recurrence"" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary?","","
Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.
The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:
Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision.
","2011" "20110144","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is steroid resistant idiopathic thrombocytic purpura (ITP) the same as refractory thrombocytopenia [9992/3]?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Idiopathic thrombocytic purpura (ITP) is not a synonym for refractory thrombocytopenia (RT). ITP is not a reportable disease. See Appendix F.
Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, the only synonym for refractory thrombocytopenia is ""RT."" ITP is not listed as a synonym for refractory thrombocytopenia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110143","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many and what primary site(s) are to be accessioned when biopsies of clavicular and neck skin lesions are both consistent with mycosis fungoides? See Discussion.
","Per the Heme DB and Manual, this is a single primary; however, per the MP/H Rules, this would be multiple primaries. Which rules apply to this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
When there is a question of whether the SEER MP/H Rules or Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Rules apply, check the histology and refer to the Case Reportability Instructions in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual. All ICD-O-3 morphology codes in the range 9590 - 9992 are included in the Hematopoietic Rules. Mycosis Fungoides [9700/3] is included in this range. Therefore, the SEER MP/H Rules do not apply to mycosis fungoides.
This case should be accessioned as a single primary: mycosis fungoides [9700/3] of the skin, NOS [C449]. Per Rule M2 abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
Note that in the Primary Site(s) section of the Heme DB, it states the primary site must always be coded to skin (C440 - C449) for mycosis fungoides. Because the primary site is stated in this section of the Heme DB, it is not necessary to use the Primary Site Rules to determine the primary site. Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS] because the patient has multiple sites of skin involvement and there is no documentation indicating which subsite of skin was the origin of the mycosis fungoides.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110142","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the pathologic final diagnosis of ""follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent in situ follicular lymphoma"" reportable if the clinician also states this may be an ""in situ follicular lymphoma""? See Discussion.
","2/16/11 mesentery biopsy showed ""follicular lymphoma, WHO grade 1-2, findings may represent an ""in situ"" follicular lymphoma.""
3/7/11 clinician note stated, ""nodularity of the mesentery which upon biopsy may be in situ follicular lymphoma. No treatment is necessary. This is not a proven malignancy. It may evolve into one. Plan 6 month follow-up and CT scans.
Do the notes from the oncologist and pathologist stating that this ""may be"" or ""may represent"" an in situ lymphoma make this case non-reportable?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should not be accessioned. In situ lymphoma is not reportable for any of the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, or SEER). In the Case Reportability Instructions, the NOTE under Rule 3 states, ""Do report in situ (/2) lymphomas.""
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110141","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a 2010 diagnosis of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be abstracted as a new primary when the patient has a history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in the 1980's and a 1991 history of DLBCL of the bowel (NOS)? See Discussion.
","Patient presents in 2010 with the history of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and DLBCL. The patient is stated to have been in remission from the DLBCL. However, a current CT scan of the brain is consistent with central nervous system DLBCL. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology is consistent with DLBCL. The CT scan of the torso showed no lymphadenopathy or suspicious findings.
Does the recently discovered DLBCL disease process in the central nervous system represent a new third primary? Or is this disease recurrence/progression? The patient was referred to a cancer center and there is no additional information available regarding further workup or treatment.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The patient only has two primaries: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosed in the 1980s and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the bowel diagnosed in 1991.
The DLBCL of the brain does not represent a new primary. It is progression of the 1991 disease process with the same histology. Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, one synonym for DLBCL is ""Primary DLBCL of the CNS."" The histology code for both the 1991 bowel neoplasm and the current CNS neoplasm is 9680/3. Per Rule M2, a single histology is a single primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110140","MP/H Rules/Behavior--Breast: How are behavior and histology coded when the pathology report final diagnosis is ""ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ"" if the microscopic examination section of the same pathology report states there are ""foci suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma""? See Discussion.","The pathology report microscopic examination states, ""focally, between ducts involved by DCIS, there are minute tubular structures associated with stromal fibrosis and chronic inflammation. These foci are suspicious for microinvasive carcinoma.""","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code one primary with histology and behavior coded to 8522/2 [intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histology rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. The information provided does not specify whether this was a single tumor with DCIS and LCIS or multiple tumors with DCIS and LCIS. In this case, the number of tumors does not change the histology code for this patient. For this example, assume this disease process was a single tumor.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: In Situ Carcinoma Only module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H8. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Code the histology as 8522/2 (intraductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma in situ) when there is a combination of in situ lobular (LCIS) [8520] and intraductal carcinoma (DCIS).
Do not code the behavior as invasive in this case. The pathologist indicated that these findings were ""suspicious"" but not definite in the microscopic examination. If the pathologist decided that this was truly an invasive tubular element, it would have been included in the final diagnosis.
","2011" "20110138","
First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?
","The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.
Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?
","For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, ""The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE."" In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.
However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when ""residual disease"" or ""failed to achieve remission"" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.
","2011" "20110137","MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for a ""malignant baso-melanocytic tumor"" arising in the skin of right shoulder?","","
Code the histology as melanoma, NOS [8720/3].
This is a malignant skin tumor with both melanoma and basal cell carcinoma histologies. There is no ICD-O-3 code for this entity. Per our subject matter expert, code the histology to 8720/3 [melanoma, NOS] and document the diagnosis of malignant baso-melanocytic tumor in a text field because melanoma is reportable to SEER and basal cell carcinoma is not.
","2011" "20110136","
MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: Can information from the CAP checklist that indicates, Tumor configuration: papillary be used to code histology to 8130 [papillary urothelial carcinoma] if the final diagnosis is also stated to be Bladder rumor: urothelial carcinoma and the pathologist stages the case as pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]?
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2017 ONLY: Code the histology as papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130].NOTE: In the CAP checklist, the statement that the tumor has a papillary configuration is a further description of this tumor. This is supported by the pathologist's stage of pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]. Use the information from the CAP checklist when available. The MP/H Rules will be revised to include the term ""configuration"" in the specific histology terms for in situ tumors.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are
Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Urinary Histo rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. In this case, the patient has a single bladder tumor per the submitted information.
Step 2: Start at Rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H15. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Stop at Rule H7. Code the histology as 8130/2 (noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the urothelial carcinoma is stated to have a papillary configuration.
For cases diagnosed 2018 or later, refer to the Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/
","2011" "20110135","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: Per SINQ 20110115, why is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded to 8260 [papillary adenocarcinoma] rather than 8050 [papillary carcinoma]?
","","The histology codes for lung tumors are based on the World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors. Chart 1 in the MP/H Lung Equivalent Terms, Definitions, Charts, Tables and Illustrations (2007 MP/H Rules Manual) illustrates the WHO Classification of Lung Tumors.
Using Chart 1, note that papillary adenocarcinoma [8260] is located under the Adenocarcinoma (NOS) branch. The histology in question was stated to be ""micropapillary adenocarcinoma"" and not ""papillary carcinoma."" Papillary carcinoma, NOS [8050] is not actually located on the chart. However, papillary squamous cell carcinoma is listed under the Squamous Cell Carcinoma, NOS branch, histology code 8052.
Next, look up papillary carcinoma [8050] in the Morphology - Numerical listing section of the ICD-O-3. Papillary carcinoma, NOS is a Squamous Cell Neoplasm. (Refer also to SINQ 20091040.)
The key word used to determine the appropriate histology in this case is ""adenocarcinoma."" This is a papillary adenocarcinoma and not a papillary squamous neoplasm.
","2011" "20110134","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted, and what rule applies, when the patient has a 1999 diagnosis of Burkitt high grade B-cell lymphoma and was diagnosed in 2011 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion","Patient diagnosed in 1999 with Burkitt high-grade B cell lymphoma of the thyroid gland and cervical nodes. The patient was treated with a thyroidectomy and chemotherapy. A 2011 biopsy of the parotid gland is positive for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. The pathologist reviewed the 1999 and 2011 pathology reports and stated this is one primary.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M15. Rule M15 instructs one to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. Code the histology for the 1999 primary to 9687/3 [Burkitt high grade B cell lymphoma] and code primary site to C739 [thyroid.] Code the second primary to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] with primary site coded to C079 [parotid gland] per Rule PH24 which instructs one to code the to the when lymphoma is present only in an .
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110132","Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of ""small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder"" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion.","The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was ""small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder."" The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative).","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Yes. The term ""small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder"" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.
The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110131","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.
The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.
In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110130","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion.","09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.
07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS).
Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.
The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].
Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].
The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.
","2011" "20110129","
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology report for a right upper lobectomy with a chest wall resection describes the disease as 1) two foci of poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, 2) mixed adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus? See Discussion.
","This case was abstracted as two primaries, adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] per Rules M5 and M10. If this is reported as only two primaries, what is the stage for each tumor? The non-small cell tumors were the most invasive, but they were not a separate primary per Rule M10.
Final pathology diagnosis for a RUL lobectomy and chest wall resection: Carcinoma of the lung with the following features:
1. Non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated (see comment). Two foci in same lobe: 10 cm and 3 cm (largest dimensions of each tumor). Invades pleura (PL3), main bronchus and chest wall invasion present.
2. Adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (see comment). Histologic subtype: Acinar and papillary (adenocarcinoma); non-mucinous (BAC). Two foci in same lobe: up to 1.0 cm. Pleural invasion absent, chest wall invasion absent.
3. Metastatic carcinoma in 5/7 peribronchial LN's.
Two histologically distinct neoplasms identified in the lobectomy/chest wall resection specimen: Poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma, present as two foci; and adenocarcinoma and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, each present as a separate focus.
","SEER will answer the question about the number of primaries to accession. Submit questions about stage to the CoC CAnswer Forum.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Accession two primaries: a mixed adenocarcinoma, acinar and papillary types [8255/3] and a bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous [8252/3].
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Determine the histology code for each tumor prior to applying the Multiple Primary Rules to determine the number of primaries to accession. There are two non-small cell carcinomas, NOS; the histology code for these two tumors will be 8046/3. There is a single adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes tumor, the histology for this tumor will be 8255. There is a single bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous subtype tumor; the histology for this tumor will be 8252/3.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3, because this patient has multiple tumors. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3] are multiple primaries.
Perform a second pass through the Multiple Primary rules to determine whether the two non-small cell carcinomas [8046/3] are multiple primaries or manifestations of the same primaries identified in Step 3.
Start at Rule M3 again because this patient has multiple tumors. Again, these rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient's non-small cell carcinomas, NOS [8046/3] are a single primary when compared to the adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3]. Both of these histologies are more specific types of non-small cell carcinoma per the Lung Histology Groups and Specific Types Chart (Chart 1).
You can also apply Rule M10 for both non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to adenocarcinoma with acinar and papillary subtypes [8255/3] and non-small cell carcinoma, NOS [8046/3] compared to non-mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma [8252/3].
","2011" "20110128","Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded if a bone marrow biopsy demonstrates diffuse infiltration by B-cell lymphoma/leukemia which consists of medium-sized cells with Burkitt morphology and the flow cytometry has no evidence of leukemia or lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as one primary. Per Rule PH26, code the primary site to bone marrow (C421) when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. (We assumed all available physical exams, scans, and other work-up were negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement.) Histology is coded to 9680/3 [Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)]. Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, a synonym for DLBCL is B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110127","Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Are meninges surrounding cranial nerves cranial meninges [C700] or a part of the specific nerve's sheath? Is the primary site for an optic nerve sheath meningioma coded to optic nerve [C723] or cranial meninges [C700]?
","","Code the primary site to cranial meninges [C700].
","2011" "20110126","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned, and what rule applies, when the patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma diagnosed in 2003, a follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2009, and another diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in 2010? Is the application of the multiple primary rules effected if it is unknown whether the patient was ever disease free? See Discussion.","Patient has a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving multiple lymph node regions (site C778) with bone marrow involvement diagnosed in 2003 and a history of follicular lymphoma confined to the thyroid and neck lymph nodes diagnosed in 2009. In 2010 the patient was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in the inguinal and abdominal lymph nodes.
The 2003 diagnosis of DLBCL and the 2009 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma are the same primary according to the 2009 rules, the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table.
What rule is used to determine whether the 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma represents a new primary? Which histologies are compared using the rules: the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2009 follicular diagnosis or the 2010 follicular lymphoma diagnosis to the 2003 DLBCL diagnosis?
","This case should be accessioned as one primary.
Reportability is determined by the year of diagnosis. The original DLBCL was diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma in 2009. The pre-2010 rules are used for both cases. Per the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries Table, these are the same primary. It is reported with the histology 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]
Do not compare the DLBCL diagnosed in 2003 and the follicular lymphoma diagnosed in 2010 because the determination of the number of primaries for the two specific histologic types was done (as it should have been) using the rules in effect in 2009 when the follicular lymphoma was first diagnosed. The determination of a single or multiple primaries is made the first time the patient presents with the two different diseases; it is not changed when the same disease process reappears after 2010.
","2011" "20110125","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What would the histology code be for a wedge bx of the left lung, lower lobe, that was read out as well differentiated adenocarcinoma with micropapillary features?","","Code papillary adenocarcinoma 8260/3. The ICD-O-3 codes for micropapillary have specific associations such as ductal, serous or transitional. None of those associations fit lung primaries.","2011" "20110124","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is the histology coded for a single tumor of the left lower lobe that is stated to be a sarcomatoid carcinoma with features of carcinosarcoma, spindle cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and giant cell carcinoma?","","Histology is sarcomatoid carcinoma [8033/3]. This case was sent to the lung physician experts because of the difficulty in trying to apply the current MP/H rules. Their rationale for the coding decision follows:
""This pathologist has diagnosed a sarcomatoid carcinoma, and then listed all of the subtypes associated with that diagnosis. I would go with the primary diagnosis, sarcomatoid carcinoma. The inclusion of squamous cell differentiation would exclude spindle cell and giant cell as diagnoses, so the pathologist is using them descriptively. We have no basis for picking one of the subtypes and sarcomatoid carcinoma covers all of the diagnoses given.""
See the glossary in the Lung Equivalent Terms and Definitions for Sarcomatoid carcinoma: A group of tumors that are non-small cell in type and contain spindle cells and/or giant cells. Depending on the histologic features the tumor may be designated: pleomorphic carcinoma [8022/3]; spindle cell carcinoma [8032/3]; giant cell carcinoma [8031/3], carcinosarcoma [8980/3]; or pulmonary blastoma [8972/3].
","2011" "20110123","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are the terms EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder with or without the term ""of the elderly"" and iatrogenic EBV positive lymphoproliferative disorder reportable? See Discussion.
","The only reportable term listed is ""EBV positive B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder of the elderly."" Are the following cases reportable?
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110122","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to AML, NOS [9861/3] for a bone marrow biopsy with a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) if the cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13? See Discussion.","This patient actually had no prior diagnosis of MDS. The bone marrow biopsy revealed AML evolving from MDS. Cytogenetics revealed trisomy 13 with no other abnormalities. Does the presence of a trisomy 13 change the histology to a more specific subtype of AML?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..
This should be accessioned as a single primary per Rule M8 which states to abstract as a single primary and code the acute neoplasm when both a chronic (MDS) and an acute (AML) neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously or within 21 days AND there is documentation of only one positive bone marrow biopsy, lymph node biopsy, or tissue biopsy. Code the histology to 9895/3 [acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes].
NOTE: When you search with quotation marks around the phrase, the database will only return results with that exact wording. To only return results for the expression trisomy 13, enter in the Heme DB. In this case, a search for ""trisomy 13"" returns no results. Therefore, it does not impact the coding of histology for this case.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110121","MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Will the AJCC TNM 7 having separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma result in coding histology for a tumor of mixed squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma because it has the poorer prognosis? See Discussion.","Per the CS Esophageal Schema, Note 4, there are now separate stage groupings for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Should a tumor of mixed histopathologic type be classified as a squamous cell carcinoma?
","
Do NOT use the Collaborative Stage Manual to determine the histology code. For CS STAGING purposes only, coding should be based on the squamous cell carcinoma component of this tumor.
The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an esophagus primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because esophagus does not have site specific rules.
Start at Rule H8 because this is an invasive histology (assuming this is a single tumor). which states that one should code the appropriate combination/mixed code from Table 2 when there are multiple specific histologies.
Find Other Sites for Table 2 under the Terms & Definitions section of manual.
Locate the appropriate mixed code for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in column 1. Per column 3, the correct histology is adenosquamous carcinoma. Per column 4, the correct histology is 8560/3.
","2011" "20110120","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for a BILATERAL nipple sparing mastectomy given that SINQ 20110094 indicates that a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] but there is no code for bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies?","","The Surgery of Primary Site field reflects the type of surgery performed on the primary site. In this case, a nipple sparing mastectomy should be coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy]. If the details of the case indicate this is a single primary involving both breasts, code removal of involved contralateral breast under the data item Surgical Procedure/Other Site.","2011" "20110119","MP/H Rules/Primary Site--Bladder: How is the primary site coded when a patient is diagnosed with synchronous, non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder and renal pelvis? See Discussion.","This patient was diagnosed with at least three non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas of the bladder in 11/09. The patient subsequently underwent a complete nephroureterectomy in 12/09 showing a single non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis.
Per the MPH Rule M8, this is a single primary. Is the primary site to be coded C659 [renal pelvis] or C689 [urinary system, NOS]?
","Assign code C68.9 when multiple tumors are found in multiple urinary sites at the same time.","2011" "20110118","Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.
","08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.
SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported?
","This case is reportable.
It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy.
","2011" "20110116","MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for ""heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation""?
","","The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.
Expert consultation: The designation ""carcinosarcoma"" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term ""biphasic."" The term ""heterologous"" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).
","2011" "20110115","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is micropapillary adenocarcinoma of the lung coded given that a literature search indicates that this is a distinct subtype of adenocarcinoma of the lung with poor prognosis?","","Code the histology to 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma]. An expert pathologist states that the WHO notes micropapillary to be a pattern seen in papillary carcinomas, but does not specify it as a separate histologic type.","2011" "20110111","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a patient with a history of right breast ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 2007 treated with bilateral mastectomies and a right chest wall mass excised in 2010 that revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.
","The patient's right breast DCIS in 2007 was treated with bilateral mastectomies with negative lymph nodes and negative margins. The patient refused Tamoxifen at that time. In 2010 a right chest wall mass excision revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma with negative axillary lymph nodes. The physician states this is a recurrence. Per MP/H rule M8 this invasive tumor must be abstracted as a new primary. Would the primary site of the 2010 tumor be coded to breast or chest wall given that the patient has a previous mastectomy?
","This tumor in 2010 represents a recurrence; it is not a new primary. This second tumor would be coded as a new primary ONLY if the pathology report states that it originated in breast tissue that was still present on the chest wall. When there is no mention of breast tissue in a subsequent resection, the later occurring tumor is regional metastases to the chest wall (i.e., a recurrence of the original tumor).
In turn, this means that there was at least a focus of invasion present in the original tumor that was not identified by the pathologist. The behavior code on the original abstract must be changed from a /2 to a /3 and the stage must be changed from in situ to localized.
","2011" "20110110","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Head & Neck: If a 1991 neuroesthesioblastoma [9522/3] of the nasal cavity has subsequent recurrences of the same histology but later ""recurs"" in 2008 with ""sarcoma, NOS, high grade"" on a biopsy and a ""high grade fibrosarcomatous transformation of esthesioneuroblastoma"" [8810/3] on resection, should the subsequent tumor be reported as a new primary if the clinician continues to refer to the tumor as a ""recurrence""? See Discussion.
","Are histologic transformations always recurrences of the original tumor?
","Assuming the same primary site for the 2008 lesion, according to the current MP/H rules the high grade fibrosarcoma [8810/3] is a new primary per Head & Neck MPH rule 11 because it is a different histology.
The revised MP/H rules will include tables to define tumors that de-differentiate (transform) and recur with what is seemingly a different histology. Although the rules will be changed in the future, we must use the rules in place at this time for this case.
","2011" "20110109","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma, plasmacytoma and plasma cell leukemia?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is accessioned as one primary and the histology is coded to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].
To arrive at this answer, it is important to first try to determine how many different unique neoplasms there are to correctly identify the number of primaries to report. Per the Heme DB, plasma cell leukemia is an obsolete term. The current term and histology code for this diagnosis is 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma]. Plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are synonyms per the Heme DB. Therefore, per Rule M2 a single primary exists when there is a single histology. That takes care of the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma and plasma cell leukemia, but not the plasmacytoma.
In checking the Heme DB, the terms plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are not synonyms for plasmacytoma. Therefore, we are left to determine whether the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma vs the plasmacytoma represents one or two primaries.
Under the Transformation section of the Heme DB, it indicates that plasmacytoma (a chronic disease process) transforms to multiple myeloma (an acute disease process). Per Rule M9, abstract a single primary and code the acute histology when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously. The histology is coded to the acute neoplasm when there is no information on the biopsy regarding which is the ""later"" histology. This update will be added to the Heme Manual.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110108","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site for a bone marrow biopsy positive for systemic mastocytosis that also involves the spleen and lymph nodes with associated leukocytosis, mild anemia and thrombocytopenia?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, one is to use the to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do apply. Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] because that is the only site listed under the Primary Site section of the Heme DB.
Under the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, it indicates that the bone marrow is always involved, and the white and red pulp of the spleen may be involved with systemic mastocytosis. This is how this patient presented; therefore, the bone marrow is the primary site. The spleen is secondarily involved because the spleen cleanses the blood and the neoplastic cells have infiltrated the red and white pulp of the spleen. The same is true for the lymph nodes. Although the lymph nodes are rarely involved, they may be involved when the patient has systemic mastocytosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110107","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia involving the bone marrow and peripheral blood (per pathology) with a clinically noted large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy? See Discussion.","The patient had a large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy, however, no biopsy was performed of either area nor was there a specific statement indicating involvement. The bone marrow biopsy showed 100% cellular marrow with involvement by precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The peripheral blood also showed precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The discharge summary and office notes state the diagnosis as T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9837/3 [adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma] and the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes, multiple regions]. Per Rule PH8, code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organs are involved. A statement of ""mediastinal mass"" and lymphadenopathy for lymphoma primaries is equivalent to lymph node involvement. To identify the more specific primary site, you need to move to Rule PH21 that indicates you are to code the primary site as multiple lymph node regions, NOS [C778] when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110106","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site to be coded for a 2010 diagnosis of follicular lymphoma involving the spleen and lymph nodes above and below the diaphragm?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Use Rule PH21 to code the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes of multiple regions]. The spleen is not listed under the Primary Site(s) section in the Heme DB for follicular lymphoma. Per Rule PH21 code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. The spleen is a primary site for only a few lymphomas (noted in the Heme DB). Because the spleen filters blood, it is often reactive (splenomegaly) or frankly involved with the lymphoma. That reaction or involvement, however, does not affect the primary site coding. Only the involved nodes are used in coding primary site.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110105","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of ""lymphoproliferative disorder, small cell lymphocytic lymphoma/small cell lymphocytic leukemia consistent with marginal zone lymphoma""?","","According to our hematopoietic/lymphoid neoplasm physician expert, abstract one primary with the histology code 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma]. The pathologist is using the expression ""small lymphocytic lymphoma"" in a descriptive manner (marginal zone lymphoma is comprised of small lymphocytes) rather than in a ""diagnostic"" manner.","2011" "20110104","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C421 [bone marrow] or C770-C779 [lymph nodes] for an adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma [9827/3] that presented with a positive bone marrow biopsy and involvement of lymph nodes and the lung?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..
Code the primary site to the involved lymph nodes [C770-C779]. Per Rule PH 8, it indicates you are to code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organs are involved. Note 2 further states that the bone marrow may or may not be involved. If the bone marrow is involved, code this information in the CS Extension field.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, this is a systemic disease with widespread lymph node involvement as well as involvement of the peripheral blood. In addition, systemic involvement of extranodal sites (including lung) are often involved.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110103","MP/H Rules/Histology/Ambiguous terminology: Can synonyms of listed terms, such as ""variety"" for the list termed ""type,"" be used to code a more specific histology? See Discussion.","The list of terms denoting a more specific histology does not include ""variety."" During MP/H training sessions there was an emphasis placed on only using terms listed to code a more specific histology. However, the results of an audit indicated that because ""variety"" is a synonym for ""type"" it could be used to code a more specific histology. Are synonyms of listed terms to be used to code histology?","No. Synonyms of listed words used in the MP/H rules (e.g., ""variety"" for the listed term ""type"") cannot be used to designate a more specific histology.","2011" "20110102","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: For cases diagnosed 2010 and later, are idiopathic thrombocytopenia and autoimmune thrombocytopenia reportable?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Idiopathic and autoimmune types of thrombocytopenia are not reportable. Thrombocytopenia and thrombocythemia are not synonyms. Cytopenia and cythemia have different definitions. See Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110101","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the primary site coded to C778 or C779 for a diffuse large B cell lymphoma with abdominal lymph node, neck lymph node, and spleen involvement?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Use Rule PH21 to code the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes of multiple regions]. The spleen is not listed under the Primary Site(s) section in the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Per Rule PH21 code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. The spleen is a primary site for only a few lymphomas (noted in the Heme DB). Because the spleen filters blood, it is often reactive (splenomegaly) or frankly involved with the lymphoma. That reaction or involvement, however, does not affect the primary site coding. Only the involved nodes are used in coding primary site.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110099","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for bilateral pelvic lymph node involvement for lymphoma primaries?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The PH rules for coding lymphomas (Module 7) refer to a lymph node region as defined by the ICD-O-3. Per the Appendix C, , the ICD-O-3 lymph node region for ""pelvic"" is C775. In this case, there is one lymph node region involved (bilaterally). Per Rule PH20, code the specific lymph node region when multiple lymph nodes within the same lymph node region (as defined by the ICD-O-3) are involved, C775. Per Note 1 under Rule PH20, use this rule when there is bilateral involvement of lymph nodes.
This same table in Appendix C also provides information on how left and right pelvic lymph nodes are categorized by AJCC for purposes of coding stage. If the left and right pelvic lymph nodes are positive for lymphoma, it is involvement of two regions. The case is coded as Stage II.
Keep in mind that the ICD-O-3 definition of regions is used to code the primary site, while the AJCC definition of regions is used to code stage.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110096","Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, ""non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)"" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion.","Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, ""The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component.""","Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ.","2011" "20110095","Reportability/Histology: Is the diagnosis ""low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin (consistent with gastrinoma)"" reportable with the histology code 8240/3 [carcinoid] or 8153/3 [malignant gastrinoma]? See Discussion.","A carcinoid tumor (8240/3) is reportable but a gastrinoma, NOS (8153/1) is not.","Code histology to 8153/3 [malignant gastrinoma].
According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System, pages 64-65, carcinoid is a synonym for gastric neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and gastrinoma is synonymous with gastrin-producing NET. Gastrin-producing NET (gastrinoma) is coded 8153/3.
","2011" "20110094","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is a ""nipple sparing mastectomy"" coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] or 40 [total (simple) mastectomy] if the nipple/areolar complex was not removed but the pathology specimen indicates some breast skin was removed? See Discussion.
","In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, ""A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin."" More ""nipple-sparing mastectomies"" are now being performed at certain facilities.
Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies?
","Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 [Subcutaneous mastectomy] for this case.
Assign code 30 when the nipple and areolar complex are NOT removed. Assign code 40 (or higher) when the nipple and areolar complex ARE removed.
","2011" "20110093","Residence at dx: After living elsewhere (Florida) and traveling around the country in an RV with his spouse, is a patient a resident of this area for either primary if he was diagnosed with his first primary less than a month after arriving in the area and a second primary more than a year after parking his RV here?
","","Use the patient's usual residence to determine residency. If the usual residence is not known or the information is not available, use the residence the patient specifies at the time of diagnosis. The SEER rules for determining ""usual residence"" match the rules used by the US Census Bureau.
","2011" "20110092","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned when a pathology specimen reveals one tumor with invasive mucinous carcinoma [8480/3] and a second tumor with in situ ductal carcinoma, solid and cribriform types [8523/2]?
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, invasive mucinous carcinoma [8480/3] and in situ ductal carcinoma, solid and cribriform types [8523/2].
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 after determining the histology of each tumor (8480/3 and 8523/2).
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxx) and third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.
","2011" "20110091","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: How is this field coded for a patient with ureter specimen with ""high grade urothelial carcinoma with adenocarcinoma differentiation"" and a TURB specimen with ""urothelial ca, high grade, a biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma""?","","According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. The term ""glandular differentiation"" is equivalent to adenocarcinoma differentiation. 8120/3 [urothelial carcinoma] would be the best way to code a ""biphasic pattern with cautery-distorted urothelial carcinoma and adenocarcinoma"" according to a pathologist consultant.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows:
Go to the Urinary Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, rule H9. Code the histology to 8120 [transitional cell/urothelial carcinoma] when there is transitional cell carcinoma with glandular differentiation.
","2011" "20110090","MP/H Rules/Histology/Behavior--Ovary: How are these fields coded for a 20 cm borderline mucinous tumor with a 0.3 cm minor focus of intraepithelial carcinoma of the ovary that the pathologist stages as T1a?","","According to the MP/H rules, code histology to 8010/2 [intraepithelial carcinoma] for cases diagnosed 2007-2014. Borderline mucinous tumor is not reportable to SEER.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Go to the Other Sites Histo rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.
Start at the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, rule H1. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. The only reportable histology in this case is intraepithelial carcinoma [8010/2].
","2011" "20110088","Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion.
","The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon?
","Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery.
","2011" "20110084","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is histology coded to 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] for a biopsy that reveals ""diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, immunoblastic variant""?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Code 9684/3 [malignant lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell, immunoblastic NOS] is obsolete for cases diagnosed 2010 and later per the Heme DB.
Under the Definitions section in the Heme DB, it states that this is a lymphoma with diffuse proliferation of large neoplastic B lymphoid cells with nuclear size exceeding macrophage nuclei, more than twice size of normal lymphocytes. Normal architecture of node or extranodal tissue replaced in diffuse pattern. Morphologic variants: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110082","First course treatment/Other therapy--Skin: How is PUVA [psoralen (P) and long-wave ultraviolet radiation (UVA)] coded when used for skin primaries such as melanoma and mycosis fungoides?","","Code PUVA as ""Other treatment"" with Code 1 - Other. We do not have a code specifically for ultraviolet radiation.","2011" "20110081","MP/H Rules/Histology--Pancreas: What is the correct histology code for pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) for cases diagnosed in 2007 and later?","","Code histology for PanIN-III to 8148/2 [Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the following steps are used to determine the histology code:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a pancreas primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because pancreas does not have site specific rules.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU ONLY module, start at rule H1. Code 8148/2 [Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III]. There is only one histologic type identified.
In the next version of the MP/H rules, the H22 rule ""Code 8148/2 (Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia grade III) for in situ glandular in sites such as the (PAIN III)"" will be included under H2 as well. Currently the rule is only in the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module and should also be include under the SINGLE TUMOR: IN SITU only module.
","2011" "20110080","Grade--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is this field coded for a non-invasive high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis? See Discussion.","Per instructions in the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Coding Guidelines for Bladder, ""Code grade 9 (unknown) for non-invasive urothelial (transitional) tumors."" The Coding Guidelines listed under Renal Pelvis, Ureter are only for Kidney [C649]. Do the grade instructions under bladder apply to ALL non-invasive urothelial tumors, or are we to use the kidney grading instructions to code grade for renal pelvis and ureter malignancies?","Code grade to 4 [high grade]. Follow the instructions in the main part of the 2010 SEER Manual under the data item Grade (pages 73 - 76). There are no specific instructions for coding grade for renal pelvis. Apply the general instructions in the absence of site-specific instructions.","2011" "20110079","MP/H Rules/Histology: In the MP/H Manual, where is the documentation indicating ""focal"" is not a term that can be used to code histology? See Discussion.","Example: neuroendocrine carcinoma with focal squamous differentiation.","For the purposes of the MP/H rules, the term ""focal"" is not used to indicate a more specific histology. Terms that may be used to indicate a more specific histology are listed in the relevant histology rules. For example, see Breast histology rule H3. Notice the terms listed in the note for this rule are ""type, subtype, predominantly, with features of, major, with ___ differentiation, architecture or pattern."" The term ""focal"" is not included. This concept will be clarified in future revisions to MP/H rules.","2011" "20110078","MP/H Rules/Histology--Bladder: What is the histology code for ""high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant""? See Discussion.","Per the MP/H Manual, Urinary Equivalent Terms & Definitions, Table 1, plasmacytoid is a specific type of Urothelial/Transitional Cell Tumor. What is the correct histology, and rule used, when a bladder resection pathology report states, ""high-grade urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid variant""?","Code the histology to 8082/3 [urothelial carcinoma, plasmacytoid].
The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Unfortunately, in this case there is no current rule that directs you appropriately to Table 1 from Rule H7 to find this histology combination. We need to add an example under Rule H7 that instructs you to ""See Table 1"" for an urothelial carcinoma diagnosis that mentions a more specific cell type (e.g., plasmacytoid). We will add a reference to Table 1 in Rule H7 in the updates to MP/H Rules.
","2011" "20110077","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be reported if different recurrence scores are found on the Oncotype Dx studies performed for multiple tumors in the same breast if the clinician states the patient has two primaries but the pathologist does not address the issue? See Discussion.","A patient has two separate lesions in the same quadrant with the same histology. According to the MP/H rules this is a single primary. However, Oncotype Dx studies were performed on both tumors and the DX recurrence was different for each tumor. The medical oncologist states the patient has two primaries. The pathologist does not indicate the number of primaries.","This is a single primary. The only rules used to determine the number of primaries are the MP/H rules for cases diagnosed 2007 or later. Do not use other information such as Oncotype Dx to determine the number of primaries for a patient. Oncotype is used to determine whether the cancer is likely to recur AND whether the cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Breast MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text).
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M4 to Rule M13. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
The patient has two tumors in the same breast with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
","2011" "20110075","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code primary site for a case of ""leukemia cutis"" when the bone marrow exam is negative for involvement with leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per Rule PH30 which states to use the to determine the primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 do apply. Leukemia cutis is the term for a leukemic infiltration of the epidermis, the dermis or the subcutis. This infiltration is easily identified as cutaneous lesions, but the primary site is still bone marrow. This is a type of ""metastasis"" or spread of the leukemia cells. The ""conventional"" definition for leukemia cutis is the infiltration of skin from a bone marrow primary. See the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Glossary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110074","First course treatment/Date therapy initiated--Breast: How is the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field coded when a patient undergoes ""Tamoxifen blunting"" to achieve better MRI imaging after a biopsy but prior to definitive surgery which is followed by adjuvant Tamoxifen therapy? See Discussion.","Patients are prescribed two weeks of ""Tamoxifen blunting"" to achieve better MRI imaging after biopsy confirmation of an ER/PR positive breast carcinoma. The Tamoxifen is subsequently discontinued and the patient has definitive surgery. Following surgery, maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated. Which date should be recorded for the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field? Is it the first date when Tamoxifen blunting started or the post-surgical date when maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated?","Use the post-surgical start date of maintenance Tamoxifen to code the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field. The actual hormone treatment begins after surgery when Tamoxifen blunting was performed. The low dose administered prior to surgery does not affect the cancer.","2011" "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.
","2011" "20110072","Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion.","In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?","Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.
Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.
","2011" "20110071","Primary site: How is this field coded for an adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula without extension to the anal canal, but stated to arise in ""ectopic rectal tissue""? See Discussion.","The patient underwent a resection of a perineal mass. Per review of slides it was stated to be ""primary mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a chronic perianal fistula."" The adenocarcinoma was invasive into the dermal connective tissue and skeletal muscle, but there was no extension into the anal canal. The discharge diagnosis from the reporting facility called this adenocarcinoma of ""ectopic rectal tissue in perianal area.""
Should the primary site be coded to skin based on the dermal involvement and lack of anal or rectal involvement? Or, should the primary site be coded to rectum based on the physician's assessment that this adenocarcinoma arose in ectopic rectal tissue?
","For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:
Code the Primary Site field to C210 [Anus, NOS]. This is an unusual and rare presentation. According to our expert pathologist, ""There is no ideal site code [for] this case. I would code to C210. In this location it can at least be located by anyone who wants to get a look at such lesions. Because of the unusual location of this tumor, I would like to be able to code it to perineum, but it will be totally lost in those site codes as they represent extensive areas beyond perianal (skin of trunk, soft tissue of pelvis, and pelvis, respectively)... I would not code to rectum [because it would be] lost among too many primary rectal carcinomas.""
","2011" "20110070","MP/H Rules/Histology--Endometrium: How is histology coded when clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] is stated to involve a ""1.5 cm endometrial polyp""? See Discussion.","The CAP formatted pathology report histology field states, ""Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS 98310/3)"" and the tumor size comment field states, ""Carcinoma involves a 1.5 cm endometrial polyp."" Does rule H11 apply? Is the histology coded to clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because this is one histologic type identified in the CAP formatted histology field? Or should rule H12 apply and the histology coded as clear cell adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp [8210/3]? Or should we code the higher histology per rule H17 apply because clear cell adenocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma in a polyp are two specific histologies?
For colon primaries, whether or not the tumor arose in a polyp is quite important. Is this also the case for primaries listed in the Other Sites category?
","Code histology to 8310/3 [clear cell adenocarcinoma]. The Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.
The following steps are used to determine the histology code:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, which starts at Rule H8.
. Code clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] because only one histologic type is identified.
","2011" "20110068","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Which multiple primary rule is used to determine the number of primaries to accession when a patient has a papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2009 followed by a high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features per immunohistochemistry diagnosed in 2010? See Discussion.","A patient has papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder in March of 2009. In June of 2010 the patient has another TURBT that demonstrates a flat in situ and invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma. The path addendum indicates, ""Genzyme IHC show results consistent with high grade invasive urothelial carcinoma with neuroendocrine features."" Two months later a liver biopsy shows poorly differentiated malignant tumor. The path addendum indicates, ""Genzyme IHC results show metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma with neuroendocrine features, favor bladder primary.""
Is the latter a second bladder primary with histology code 8246/3 [neuroendocrine carcinoma]?
NOTE: Neuroendocrine is not listed as an urothelial tumor in Table 1 of MP/H Rules.
","Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary. The 2010 diagnosis is urothelial carcinoma. The presence of ""neuroendocrine features"" does not change the histologic category.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Once in the manual, locate the Urinary MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module start at rule M3.
. Bladder tumors with any combination of transitional cell carcinoma and papillary transitional carcinoma are a single primary.
","2011" "20110066","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with a history of CLL undergoing chemotherapy who is subsequently diagnosed on a liver biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation) as a second primary per Rule M10. Rule M10 states to abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (CLL) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Richter transformation)) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
""Richter transformation,"" also known as ""Richter syndrome,"" is a term that indicates CLL has transformed to DLBCL. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for DLBCL (9680/3).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110065","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a skin (right thigh) biopsy is consistent with mycosis fungoides (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma)? See Discussion.","Applying rule M15 (multiple primaries calculator) indicates this is two primaries. Is this correct?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C447 [skin of lower limb] and code histology to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]. he pathologist wrote in parentheses that this was cutaneous (i.e. primary site is skin) and that it is a T-cell lymphoma (mycosis fungoides is a T-cell lineage). So the parenthetical statement was not a separate diagnosis; rather a general classification of the mycosis fungoides. ""CTCL"" is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB. CTCL is an abbreviation for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. CTCL is a synonym for mycosis fungoides. This is a single primary per M2 which states to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110062","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, germinal cell type coded to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB, determine the histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. Code diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, germinal cell type to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)][9680/3]. Under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB, these two terms are synonyms that share the same histology code.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110061","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site and histology codes be updated when a patient with a history in 2005 of a bone marrow diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia later presents in 2010 with lymph node biopsy diagnosis of small B-cell lymphocytic leukemia?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]/
The distinction of CLL vs. SLL cannot be made on bone marrow biopsy in isolation. The pathologist cannot make a diagnosis of CLL vs SLL without having peripheral blood counts available for review. If the patient was treated for CLL in the past, that may alter the peripheral counts seen in 2010 (e.g., lymphocytosis). The distinguishing feature is peripheral lymphocytosis in CLL (not seen in SLL). The disease looks the same and both will often have bone marrow involvement and lymph node involvement. If the patient had true CLL in 2005, then any subsequent lymph node (or other) biopsy consistent with CLL/SLL remains consistent with the original diagnosis of CLL. I would not change the original CLL code.
I agree with the previous response. We have to assume the 2005 diagnosis included a peripheral blood supporting that diagnosis. Otherwise, CLL and SLL look the same in nodes and marrow. The interplay between the two ""diseases"" is expected. This is why they are considered a single disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110060","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: In the absence of any additional information regarding the disease process, is a diagnosis of ""polycythemia"" reportable if a patient is treated with phlebotomy?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
No. Polycythemia, NOS is not reportable.
Polycythemia (also known as polycythaemia or erythrocytosis) is a disease state in which the proportion of blood volume that is occupied by red blood cells increases. Blood volume proportions can be measured as hematocrit level. It can be due to an increase in the mass of red blood cells, ""absolute polycythemia""; or to a decrease in the volume of plasma, ""relative polycythemia"".
The phlebotomy is a treatment for the excessive blood volume; therefore, a diagnosis of ""polycythemia"" without one of the modifying terms listed in the Heme DB under Alternative Names is not reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110059","Histology: How do you code histology for ""malignant myopericytoma""?
","","Report malignant myopericytoma as 8824/3 for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.
","2011" "20110058","Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion.","If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, ""Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown."" The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions:
3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available
a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis
b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions:
9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions:
Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded.
","The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank.","2011" "20110057","MP/H Rules/Behavior--Appendix: How do you code mucinous cancers of the appendix? Is a ""low grade mucinous appendix tumor/neoplasm"" with peritoneal spread reportable? See Discussion.
","Low grade mucinous neoplasms can spread to the peritoneal cavity and in that sense are metastatic but histologically have bland/benign features (may be a benign cystadenoma that ruptured and spread by rupturing) are not a carcinoma. Thus, some have termed this group as DPAM (diseminated peritoneal adenomucinous) and not a true carcinoma. Others indicate that if you have metastasis the tumor is a carcinoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, low-grade mucinous tumors of the appendix are a /1, borderline/uncertain behavior, and not reportable. These tumors do spread to the peritoneal cavity (pseudomyxoma peritonei). This spread, or deposits, or implants are also borderline/uncertain behavior and do not make the appendiceal tumor reportable. By contrast, a high-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix may produce malignant/invasive pseudomyxoma peritonei. When the pseudomyxoma peritonei are diagnosed as invasive or malignant, the mucinous tumor in the appendix is reportable as a /3.
","2011" "20110056","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site for a post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) diagnosed on a brain biopsy? See Discussion.","A patient was diagnosed in 6/2010 with PTLD by a brain biopsy. PTLD typically involves lymph nodes. Can the primary site for PTLD be coded to the brain?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, PTLD commonly involves lymph nodes, GI tract, lungs, and liver. Although CNS involvement is rare, in solid organ recipients the CNS may be the only site of involvement or may be associated with multi-organ involvement. Code the primary site to C719 [brain, NOS] and the histology to 9971/3 [post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD)]
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110055","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of ""acute myeloid leukemia (non-M3 type; favor FAB M1), probably arising in myelodysplastic syndrome;"" and flow cytometry studies performed the same day were consistent with acute myeloid leukemia?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Ambiguous terminology is NOT used to determine histology for hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasms. Therefore, the comment that the AML is ""probably"" arising in myelodysplastic syndrome is not used to determine the histology code. The term ""favor"" is also an ambiguous term and cannot be used to code histology.
This is a single histology per M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. The histology is coded to 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110054","First course treatment/Other therapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a transfusion coded as first course treatment for multiple myeloma? See Discussion.","Per the SEER Manual, First Course for Leukemia and Hematopoietic Diseases definitions, Other Hematopoietic states that transfusions are coded as ""other"" in the Other Treatment fields. Does this mean that a transfusion for chemotherapy-related anemia is coded as treatment for patients with multiple myeloma?","Do not code transfusions as treatment. According to hematopoietic specialty physicians, transfusions are given for such a variety of reasons (anemia, etc.) and should not be coded as other treatment.","2011" "20110053","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a several month history of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), that may or may not have been treated, who now presents with a bone marrow biopsy that is compatible with acute myeloid leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M10, abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. Two primaries should be accessioned for this case: refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) [9983/3] (a chronic neoplasm), and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] (an acute neoplasm).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110051","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral breasts are involved with MALT lymphoma and the bone marrow is negative?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology mentioned. The histology is coded to 9699/3 [MALT lymphoma]. Code the primary site to C509 [breast] per Rule PH24 which states to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.
Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal, extragastric MALT lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites (breast is an example).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110050","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient was initially diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma in 2003, underwent multiple resections, radiation, and ultimately partial amputation of the limb in 2010, each with margins positive for residual epithelioid sarcoma? See Discussion.
","In Dec. 2003 a patient was diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma of the left palm. In Jan. 2004 the patient had an excision with skin graft and positive margins. Amputation was recommended but the patient chose radiation instead. In May 2006 the patient had a local excision positive for epithelioid sarcoma followed by an amputation of the thumb and index finger with positive margins. Then in April 2010, the patient had an amputation of the remnant of left hand up to the middle third of the forearm. Again, there was residual distal invasive tumor positive for epithelioid sarcoma.
","This is a single primary, epithelioid sarcoma of the left upper limb, diagnosed in 2003. The sarcoma progressed over the years and the patient was never free of disease -- positive margins were documented at each surgical event. Per the 2004 SEER Manual coding rules in place at the time of pre-2007 recurrences, they would not be multiple primaries according to Rule 5, exception 1.
The occurrence in 2010 is also not a new primary. The steps used to arrive at this decision are as follows.
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.
Start with the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module that applies for this case. In this module there is only one rule.
. This patient was never disease free and it is unknown if this tumor was the same tumor (single tumor) or multiple tumors. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
","2011" "20110048","First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is a ""donor lymphocyte infusion"" that is used in the treatment of CLL coded?","","Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is coded as immunotherapy. The lymphocytes are donated by the same person who donated the original stem cell transplant. The lymphocyte infusion creates an immune response in which the T-cells are activated to attack the cancer cells.
See ""Treatments"" for CLL/SLL (9823/3)
","2011" "20110047","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with NHL, large B-cell lymphoma in 3/2010 followed by a ""recurrence of previously diagnosed"" NHL per a 12/2010 liver biopsy? See Discussion.
","Are there timing rules related to the comparison of slides from a subsequent hematopoietic primary diagnosis to the slides from the original hematopoietic primary diagnosis that impact the number or primaries reported?
For example, how many primaries are reported for a patient was diagnosed in 3/2010 with large B-cell lymphoma who underwent 7 rounds of chemo. Per 10/2010 PET scan, there was no evidence of disease. In 12/2010 a liver biopsy revealed, ""features consistent with recurrence of previously diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma."" The pathologist did not compare slides to the original, but several immunoperoxidase stains were done to obtain the final diagnosis in 12/2010.
Does timing or comparison to the original slides matter for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms? Is a comparison of slides needed as required for solid tumor ""recurrences""?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as one primary per Rule M15, 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Per Rule M15 one is to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. The 12/2010 liver diagnosis of NHL, NOS [9591/3] is the same primary per the Multiple Primaries Calculator.
There are no timing rules for lymphoma other than rules M8-M13 which deal with the timing of chronic and acute diagnoses.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110046","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Stomach: If there is no statement of recurrence, how many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with multiple gastric carcinoid tumors between 12/2003 and 3/2009? See Discussion.
","Are the multiple primary rules applicable when a patient has multiple gastric carcinoid tumors? The patient was diagnosed with carcinoid tumors starting in 12/2003 through 3/2009. According to the 2004 SEER Manual, rule 5, if a tumor with the same histology is identified in the same site at least two months after the original diagnosis, this is a separate primary. The physician does not indicate that the pre-2007 carcinoid tumors were recurrent. The patient does not have familial polyposis syndrome. Should each of the following tumors be a separate primary?
12/2003 - Gastric Polyp Removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid tumor
05/2004 - Stomach body polyp removal - Path: Carcinoid Tumor (endocrine cell tumor)
09/2004 - Single polyp in body removal - Path: Gastric carcinoid
03/2005 - Multiple gastric body polyps removed - Path: Carcinoid tumor
07/2005 - 3 small polyps in fundus removal - Path: Carcinoid tumor
02/2007 - Localized nodularity in lesser curvature - Path: Carcinoid (neuroendocrine) tumor
03/2009 - Stomach body polypectomy - Path: Carcinoid tumor
","Code as a single primary. The histology is carcinoid.
Our expert pathology consultant replied as follows: ""This patient clearly has a condition driving the proliferation of neuroendocrine cells. Possibilities include hypergastrinemia from a gastrinoma or from response of antral gastrin cells due to achlorhydria from long standing chronic atrophic gastritis, or multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN1) syndrome (genetically driven). How should these cases be coded given we do not have a way to code the inciting situation. (I suspect the gastroenterologist knows what it is, but we haven't obtained that information.) We do not have an ICD-O-3 code for the underlying condition, MEN1 or hypergastrinemia. Therefore, the only choice is to code the resulting tumor, carcinoid [8240/3].""
","2011" "20110045","Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that ""the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements""?","","There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: ""immature teratoma.""","2011" "20110044","MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: What are the histologies for the primaries to be reported when the endometrium contains two separate tumors composed of adenocarcinoma with multiple differentiations as well as a separate small focus of clear cell carcinoma? See Discussion.
","
The resected specimen showed, ""Adenocarcinoma of endometrium with the following features: Histologic type: Endometrioid with squamous and focal clear cell differentiation. A second focus of endometrial adenocarcinoma is present in the fundus with admixed complex atypical hyperplasia in a polypoid, non-invasive mass. The second tumor is endometrioid with secretory differentiation. COMMENT: The tissue in between the two tumors is sampled, and contains foci of endometrial adenocarcinoma that is superficially present within the endometrium, as well as a small focus of clear cell carcinoma measuring 0.2 cm.""
Per MP/H rules M17, this is counted as multiple primaries because the histology codes differ at the third digit: 8323/3, 8382/3, 8310/3. The Multiple Primary rules make no reference to the histology tables. There is also no rule to ignore the in situ tumor. In addition, the histology table in the 2007 MP/H Rules Manual for Other Sites does not include ""secretory differentiation"" as a type of GYN malignancy.
","After consultation with our expert pathologist, the decision is report this case as a single primary. There was some confusion about how to apply the current MP/H rules to this pathology report given 1) the definition of M16 and M17 and 2) the likelihood for a single endometrial primary to present with several differentiations. According to our expert pathologist, ""I would regard this case as a single endometrial primary with extensive endometrial involvement and several types of differentiation, all of which are seen in endometrial carcinomas.""
Next, the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual is the correct source for coding histology for cases diagnosed 2007 or later.
The following steps are used to determine the histology code.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For an endometrial primary, use the Other Sites Histo rules to determine the histology code because endometrium does not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies. GYN malignancies with multiple types of adenocarcinoma have histology coded to 8323/3 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma] per rule H30.
","2011" "20110043","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which specimen should be used to code histology when a core biopsy revealed an unknown sized DCIS, comedo type and the partial mastectomy specimen showed only a 2mm focus of DCIS, solid pattern? See Discussion.","Should the histology be coded from the needle core biopsy or the partial mastectomy specimen? Patient had a needle core biopsy that revealed DCIS, comedo type, cribriform pattern, no tumor size given. Subsequently, the patient had a partial mastectomy which revealed DCIS, noncomedo type, solid pattern, largest focus of DCIS was 0.2cm.
Should the histology code be 8501/2 or 8230/2? The microscopic description on the partial mastectomy says that the previous core needle biopsy site revealed several foci of DCIS.
","Code the histology from the most representative specimen (the specimen with the MOST tumor tissue). Compare the size of tumor in the two specimens. If the tumor size is not available for both procedural specimens, code histology from the mastectomy specimen rather than the needle biopsy specimen.","2011" "20110042","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: How is histology coded when the initial biopsies of retroperitoneal mass demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor, but after neoadjuvant chemotherapy the final diagnosis on the radical orchiectomy specimen demonstrated mature teratoma, NOS (not stated to be malignant)? See Discussion.","A large retroperitoneal mass was found on CT scan. A biopsy demonstrated non-seminomatous germ cell tumor. The biopsy was done at an outside facility. Neither the CT scan nor biopsy pathology report is available for review. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the retroperitoneal mass decreased to 12 cm. Subsequently, the patient had a right radical orchiectomy. The final diagnosis per the pathology reports was a 3.5 cm mature teratoma (NOS, not stated to be ""malignant"") of right testicle. The patient then had resection of the retroperitoneal mass and biopsies. Pathology showed the ""excision"" specimen contained 6 benign lymph nodes and two of the ""biopsy"" specimens showed non-seminomatous germ cell neoplasm with IHC findings suggestive of a mix of embryonal carcinoma and a lesser component of yolk sac tumor.","This is a reportable case. Even though the pathology from the orchiectomy stated mature teratoma, NOS, the presence of lymph node metastases proves that this tumor is malignant. Code the histology as 9065/3 [germ cell tumor non-seminomatous].
The majority of germ cell tumors show the presence of multiple histologies. While the original tumor showed only mature teratoma, there were obviously yolk sac cells that were not detected on the sections taken from the primary tumor. Both teratoma and yolk sac are germ cell tumors. This explains why the pathologist gave you the diagnosis of germ cell tumor. The classification of ""non-seminomatous"" simply means that there was no seminomas present in the mixture of germ cell histologies.
","2011" "20110041","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when the final diagnosis for excisional biopsy of two cervical lymph nodes shows classical Hodgkin lymphoma, histologic subtype cannot be determined, but the COMMENT section of the report indicates there are features of both lymphocyte rich and nodular sclerosis subtypes?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH28, code histology to 9650/3 [Classical Hodgkin lymphoma]. This rule states to code the non-specific (NOS) histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology and two or more specific histologies.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
","2011" "20110040","Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates ""no residual melanoma"" reportable? See Discussion.
","Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is ""No residual melanoma""? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated ""no residual melanoma.""
","No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. ""No residual melanoma"" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.
We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.
","2011" "20110039","Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What are the primary sites and how many primaries are abstracted, when 2004 diagnosis of grade 2 follicular lymphoma of the bilateral breasts is subsequently diagnosed with a 2010 diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%) and grade 3a follicular lymphoma (60%) of a left arm nodule? See Discussion.","Follicular lymphoma was diagnosed 7/2004, grade 2 per biopsy of the bilateral breasts. Bone marrow biopsy was positive for lymphoma involving 10% of bone marrow. Imaging showed extensive lymphadenopathy mainly in abdomen/pelvis with an 8 cm mass in the right pelvis. Smaller lymph nodes were noted in the left periaortic region and also some small precarinal lymph nodes. This was a stage IVA lymphoma. The patient had six cycles of CHOP/R with an excellent response. Per the clinician's notes on 12/2005, there was no evidence of recurrence or no sign of active disease. The plan was to follow up with the patient in 6 months.
08/22/06 imaging showed new disease in the bilateral chest wall. 8/2006 bilateral breast nodule biopsies, are positive for grade 1-2 follicular lymphoma. The patient was treated with Rituxan. Per clinician's 3/2007 note, no active disease is noted. Patient was regularly followed with no evidence of disease until 10/2010. At that time, the patient had a left arm nodule biopsy which was positive for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (40%) CD positive and grade 3a follicular lymphoma (60%). RICE was recommended due to ""transformation"" per oncologist.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M10, this case should be accessioned as two primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (is follicular lymphoma (FL), grade 2) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
Code the histology for the first primary to 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma (FL), grade 2] and the primary site to bilateral C509 [breast, NOS]. FL can start as an extranodal disease; breast is one of the sites in which it originates. It is unlikely that the lymphoma extended from the nodes to the breast, but highly likely that it extended from the breast to the nodes.
Per Rule M4, abstract the 2010 disease process as a single primary when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s). Per Rule PH11 the primary site is coded to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] and the histology is coded to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)]. Rule PH11 states one is to code the primary site to the site of origin, lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organ(s) and histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110038","Reportability/Behavior: Is a ""minimally invasive thymoma"" a reportable malignancy if the pathology report does not specifically state it is malignant? See Discussion.
","For example, are Types A, B1, B2 and B3 reportable if the pathology report does not state the tumor is a ""Malignant Thymoma""?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2021
According to our expert pathologist consultant, code using the terms in the pathology report. Do not try to second guess the pathologist.
The patient was diagnosed with a composite lymphoma of a cervical lymph node 8 years after diagnosis of follicular lymphoma that involved lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm. The patient's follicular lymphoma was diagnosed in 2002.
In 2010 an excisional biopsy of a left neck lymph node showed classical Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type, grade 2 (predominant component) associated with (minor component) low grade follicular lymphoma (composite lymphoma).
Should the primary site for the 2010 primary be coded to C770 [lymph nodes of head, face & neck] or C778 [multiple lymph node regions]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C770 [lymph nodes of the head and neck]. Per Rule PH19, code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when only one lymph node or one lymph node region is involved. No involvement other than the cervical lymph nodes is mentioned for the disease in 2010.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110035","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded when both a lymph node biopsy and peripheral blood are positive for CLL/SLL? See Discussion.","Per Module 3, Rules PH5 and PH6 in the Hematopoietic Manual, it states that CLL has peripheral blood involvement and SLL does not.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] and histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]. Per Rule there may be involvement of bone marrow AND lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), or tissue(s) but as long as the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow are involved, the primary site is bone marrow (C421).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110033","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a right parotid mass shows ""MALT Lymphoma with transformation to Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma"" but the patient has no known history of MALT lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary per Rule M4 which states to abstract a single primary* when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s). The histology is coded to 9680/3 per PH11which states to code histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110032","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site is coded for Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] when it is limited to the skin?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-29 do not apply, In this case, code the primary site to C449 [Skin]. According to the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, the solitary form of Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] occurs less commonly than the multisystem form of the disease; but can appear in nodes, skin and lung. This is a solitary form of LCH. Code the primary site to skin [C449].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110031","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if patient initially diagnosed with granulocytic sarcoma on a vocal cord biopsy is subsequently diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia more than 21 days later? See Discussion.","The patient has a history of refractory anemia with excess blasts diagnosed in 2008. A vocal cord biopsy performed on 6/2/2010 stated, ""in view of a previous history of myelodysplastic syndrome this is indicative of transformation to acute leukemia"" and consistent with granulocytic sarcoma. A bone marrow biopsy done on 7/19/2010 stated this was compatible with refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation.
Granulocytic sarcoma is a solid manifestation of AML. When these diagnoses occur more than 21 days apart, are they separate primaries?
According to the WHO definition, this is acute myeloid leukemia complicating myelodysplasia. Which rule applies for this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case should be accessioned as two primaries. The first is refractory anemia with excess blasts in 2008, and the second is AML June 2, 2010.
As for the disease occurring in 2010, granulocytic sarcoma does not transform into AML. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under the term ""granulocytic sarcoma,"" it indicates that ""Myeloid sarcoma (also known as granulocytic sarcoma) may occur de novo; it may precede or coincide with AML, or represent an acute blastic transformation of myelodysplastic syndromes."" This means that when granulocytic/myeloid sarcoma is seen with AML, it represents a solid manifestation of the systemically involved AML. In other words, it is all the same disease process (coded to AML) if it occurs simultaneously.
In this case, when the physician gave a provisional diagnosis of ""transformation to acute leukemia"" it indicated he saw the solid deposits of myeloid cells on the vocal cord. Per Rule M3, AML and myeloid (granulocytic) sarcoma appearing simultaneously are a single primary coded to AML. When the patient has AML, solid myeloid deposits (myeloid sarcoma) may appear. This is a manifestation of the AML rather than a new primary. Rule PH10 states to code the histology to AML.
Under the Transformation section in the Heme DB for refractory anemia with excess blasts (a chronic neoplasm), it indicates this disease process does transform to acute myeloid leukemia, NOS (an acute neoplasm). In this case, the chronic and acute disease processes were diagnosed at different times. Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110030","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If and when did Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) become a reportable neoplasm? See Discussion.","Per the Histiocytosis Association of America, ""Over the years, cancer treatments have been used in patients with histiocytosis. Consequently, hematologists and oncologists, who treat cancer, also treat children with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. However, the disease is not cancer.""","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) [9751/3] is reportable to all agencies starting for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later. See Appendix D: New Histology Terms and Codes.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110029","DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion.","Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?
In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206).
","For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown].","2011" "20110028","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when the pathology report shows a, 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, with Hurthle cell features and a 2 mm focus of follicular variant, papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.","Right lobectomy pathology report final diagnosis states: 1.9 cm Hurthle cell carcinoma (see comment). Comment: histologic diagnosis Hurthle cell carcinoma, probable follicular variant of papillary carcinoma with Hurthle cell features. Subsequent left lobectomy one week later showed a 2 mm microscopic focus of follicular variant of papillary carcinoma, encapsulated.
None of the rules seems to fit this scenario. The number of primaries reported for this case depends on the histology coded for each tumor. Does Rule M6 (Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary.) or M17 (Tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are at the first (xxx), second (xxx) or third (xxx) number are multiple primaries.) apply? Does the case represent a single primary because both are papillary/follicular tumors or two primaries because one is Hurthle cell carcinoma, and one is papillary/follicular carcinoma (different histology at second digit)?
To code the histology for the larger tumor in the right lobe, which rule do we apply? Rule H11 (single histology of Hurthle cell carcinoma [8290] per path final diagnosis), H15 (tumor has both follicular and papillary carcinoma [8340], per path comment), or H17 (numerically higher code for 8340 because there is both Hurthle cell and papillary/follicular carcinoma)?
","Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary.
The Hurthle cell carcinoma is a synonym for follicular carcinoma according to the WHO. See page 67 of the 2004 WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Follicular and papillary tumors in the thyroid within 60 days of diagnosis are a single primary. The patient has a tumor in each lobe of the thyroid with the same histology. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, Rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H8 to Rule H18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Code follicular and papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary carcinoma, follicular variant (8340). Use the comment to code the histology for the right lobectomy. ""Probable"" is an acceptable ambiguous term to use for coding histology. (See the Ambiguous Terms Used to Code Histology section of the General Instructions in the MP/H manual.)
","2011" "20110027","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries and what histology(ies) are coded when a patient is diagnosed with a single papillary carcinoma in the left thyroid lobe and multiple foci of papillary microcarcinoma in the right thyroid lobe? See Discussion.","Is the term papillary microcarcinoma being used to describe the size of the foci only, or are the right thyroid lobe lesions a different histologic type? Does rule M6 apply (single primary)? Or does rule M11 apply (multiple primaries)?
Case summary: Left thyroid with 2.2 cm papillary carcinoma and right thyroid with ""multiple microscopic foci of papillary carcinoma (papillary microcarcinoma) ranging from less than 1 mm to 2 mm in greatest dimension.""
","Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the number of primaries. This is a single primary.
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult. The histology is the same in both lobes of the thyroid.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a thyroid primary, use the Other Sites MP rules under one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) to determine the number of primaries because the thyroid does not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M3. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule M3 to Rule M18. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. This patient has multiple papillary carcinomas of the thyroid diagnosed simultaneously; no other rule applies, so this is a single primary. Abstract a single primary for this patient.
Determine the histology code. For a thyroid, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites Histo rules to determine histology because thyroid primaries do not have site specific rules.
Start with the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY module, Rule H18. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H18 to Rule H31. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
. Code papillary carcinoma of the thyroid to papillary adenocarcinoma, NOS [8260].
","2011" "20110024","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion.","None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.
The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, ""Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2."" The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, "" Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma."" The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules.
","2011" "20110023","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported in a patient with a November 2009 diagnosis of refractory anemia and a 10/25/2010 biopsy diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts that the clinician indicates actually demonstrates progression to AML? See Discussion.","Refractory anemia, NOS diagnosed in November 2009. The diagnosis on a bone marrow biopsy performed on 10/25/10 is myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts. Per the medical oncologist, in the 12/16/10 clinic note it states, ""Pt underwent bone marrow biopsy on 10/25/10 and ultimately this marrow demonstrates progression to AML.
When applying the Hematopoietic Rules, the refractory anemia, NOS and the myelodysplastic syndrome - refractory anemia with excess blasts type 2 with ringed sideroblasts is the same primary. However, the refractory anemia NOS and the AML are multiple primaries.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
First, note that myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a term that includes a number of diseases. Refractory anemia, NOS and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts are types of MDS. These two diseases are an NOS and a more specific disease, which is accessioned as one primary per Rule M7.
Next, assess the change from refractory anemia to AML. In checking the Heme DB, AML is listed under transformations for refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts. This patient has a chronic disease (refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts) and an acute disease (AML). Per Rule M10, abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic (less aggressive) phase AND second diagnosis of a blast or acute phase more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110020","Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is cancer status to be coded when a patient diagnosed with MDS, undergoes treatment, but the MDS subsequently transforms to AML?","","If the bone marrow no longer shows evidence of MDS, the cancer status for the MDS is disease-free. When cancer status is coded as disease-free (NED), it means that currently there is no clinical evidence of this disease (MDS).","2011" "20110019","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when bilateral testes are involved with lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is a single primary per Rule M2 which indicates to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology. Code the histology to 9590/3 [lymphoma] and the primary site to C629 [testes. Unless your software has edits that prevent coding laterality for lymphomas, code the laterality as bilateral. Up to half of extranodal lymphomas occur in multiple sites, particularly in paired sites.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110018","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case with a history of follicular lymphoma, grade 2 and a subsequent splenectomy diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.
","The patient was treated over a period of time for follicular lymphoma, grade 2. The oncologist thought the spleen was congested and removed it. The diagnosis was DLBCL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph..
This case is accessioned as two primaries per Rule M10 which states to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The first primary is follicular lymphoma, grade 2 [9691/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110017","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are reported if a patient originally diagnosed with CLL is subsequently diagnosed several months later on a bone marrow biopsy with Richter's syndrome that transformed into a large cell lymphoma? See Discussion.
","Per reviewed resources, the described condition is rare. Should the histology remain CLL or be changed to large cell lymphoma?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is accessioned as two primaries per Rule M10 which states to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm and there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The first primary is CLL [9823/3] and it is a chronic neoplasm. The second primary is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3] and it is an acute neoplasm.
Richter syndrome (RS) is a complication of B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or hairy cell leukemia (HCL) in which the leukemia changes into DLBCL. There is also a less common variant in which the CLL changes into a Hodgkin lymphoma. Richter's transformation affects about 5% of CLL patients. Richter syndrome is listed under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110016","Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion.","Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The ""malignant"" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses.","The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.
The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.
","2011" "20110015","Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.","Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.
The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded to 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
The following row needs to be added to Table 2 in order to be able to correctly use the MP/H rules to reach this conclusion.
Column 1: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma
Column 2: Squamous metaplasia
Squamous differentiation
Column 3: Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia
Column 4: 8570
The change will be made in the next revision of the rules.
","2011" "20110013","MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: Which MP/H rule applies in coding the histology described as a ""malignant mixed germ cell tumor with the following features: Histologic type: embryonal carcinoma (97%) and yolk sac tumor (3%)""? See Discussion.
","Per MP/H rule H16, code the appropriate combination/mixed code (Table 2) when there are multiple specific histologies or when there is a non-specific histology with multiple specific histologies. The combination embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor is not listed in Table 2, even though the pathology report indicates this is a mixed germ cell tumor.
Should rule H17 be applied and the numerically higher histology code be used?
","As of 2016: Code histology to 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor]. Combine 9065 and 9085 for analysis purposes.
","2011" "20110012","Reportability--Sarcoma: Is ""atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma"" reportable? See Discussion.","The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, ""atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma"". The Comment section states, ""Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential.""
Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?
","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term ""well-differentiated liposarcoma"" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis.","2011" "20110011","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of ""thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology"" reportable? See Discussion.","No exact match returned after entering the term ""thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology"" in the Heme DB. However, the program does indicate there are 17 results that could be displayed that show any of the 4 terms entered. Clicking on the search label indicates there are no matches either.
The only result returned after entering ""thrombocytopenia"" into the search box is ""refractory thrombocytopenia.""
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
""Thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology"" is not reportable. Thrombocytopenia refers to a low platelet count which causes bleeding. Thrombocytopenia can be caused by viral infections, excessive alcohol usage, HIV, and other causes (including chemotherapy). If the diagnosis is not ""refractory thrombocytopenia"" the case is not reportable. Appendix F lists this term as non-reportable.
If you do not see the term in the Heme DB under either the Name column or the Alternative Names section for the results returned, it is not reportable. The only reportable term that contains the word thrombocytopenia is refractory thrombocytopenia. Therefore, thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology is not reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110010","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a recently diagnosed granulocytic sarcoma followed by a diagnosis of AML two primaries? See Discussion.
","6/10/10 Axillary lymph node biopsy was compatible with AML. The physician noted that the patient was diagnosed with granulocytic sarcoma [9930/3] in the axillary node.
6/15/10 Bone marrow biopsy compatible with AML FAB M1 [9873/3].
After induction, a second bone marrow biopsy on 6/30/10 shows persistent/refractory AML. The physician noted that the second biopsy is compatible with AML FAB M7 [9910/3].
Is the granulocytic sarcoma a chronic form of the disease? If so, do we have one primary diagnosed 6/10/10 with primary site coded to C42.1 and histology coded to 9873/3? Does the second biopsy on 6/30/10 represent the same primary even though the persistent disease is now FAB M7?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Granulocytic sarcoma does not transform into AML. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under the term ""granulocytic sarcoma,"" it indicates that ""Myeloid sarcoma (also known as granulocytic sarcoma) may occur de novo; it may precede or coincide with AML, or represent an acute blastic transformation of myelodysplastic syndromes."" This means that when granulocytic/myeloid sarcoma is seen with AML, it represents a solid manifestation of the systemically involved AML. In other words, it is all the same disease process (coded to AML) if it occurs simultaneously (i.e., at the same time or within 21 days of on another).
Apply Rule M3 to this case which states to abstract a single primary when a sarcoma is diagnosed simultaneously or after a leukemia of the same lineage. Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] with histology coded to 9873/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, M1]. The FAB category is an older classification that is seldom used. Changes from FAB 1 to FAB 7 do not constitute a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110009","Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.","
2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed ""mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS."" Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?
","
The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].
As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110008","MP/H Rules/Histology--Vulva: How is histology coded for VIN III with focal invasion? See Discussion.","Per SINQ 20000442, the histology for CIN III with microinvasion is coded to 8077 [squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] per the matrix system rules, with a behavior code of /3 [malignant]. Coding the histology to 8077/3 per the matrix principle causes IF25_3 and MorphICDO3_P1 edits to fail. Flagging the first error resolves any reporting issue. How is the MorphICDO3_P1 edit resolved?","Assign 8076/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, microinvasive] for VIN III with focal invasion. This applies to all terminologies listed under 8077/2. The SINQ question from 2000 will be retired.","2011" "20110007","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how are the histologies coded when a bladder resection demonstrates tumor with invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3], high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in situ [8130/2], adenocarcinoma in situ [8140/2], and multifocal flat urothelial carcinoma in situ? See Discussion.","Are the areas of in situ tumor to be ignored or would MP/H Rule M9 apply?
","Ignore the in situ histologies. This is a single primary. Code the histology to invasive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [8041/3].","2011" "20110006","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are all stages of CLL reportable? See Discussion.","If a physician notes the patient has Stage 0 CLL (increasing leukocytosis), is this reportable? CLL Stage is not mentioned in the Hematopoietic Manual or Database, but internet research reveals CLL has five stages (Stage 0, I, II, III, and IV).","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Yes. All stages of CLL are reportable. CLL has a unique staging system. The Heme DB and Manual do not address the issue of stage. Therefore, stage information is not reported in the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2011" "20110005","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a ""follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation""? See Discussion.","This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression ""marginal zone B-cell differentiation""?","This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma).
","2011" "20110004","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which MP/H rule applies when coding the histology field for a tumor described as a ""metaplastic carcinoma, adenosquamous and spindle cell type""? See Discussion.","Per path comment: ""The neoplasm is composed of adenosquamous carcinoma which merges with spindle cell carcinoma. The cystic component shows a mixed squamous and ductal epithelial lining which shows cytologic atypia and mitotic activity and can be seen to merge with invasive carcinoma. The features suggest the possibility that the tumor may have arisen from a sclerosing and cystic papilloma with squamous metaplasia, although a clearly benign component is not evident.""
Would MP/H rule H19 apply based on the pathology report comment resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]? Or, would MP/H rule H14 apply based on the final diagnosis resulting in histology for the case being coded to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma] because adenosquamous and spindle cell are not specific types of metaplastic carcinoma?
","This is a metaplastic carcinoma as stated in the path diagnosis. Rule H14 applies. Assign code 8575/3. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.
Use the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual for cases diagnosed 2007 or later to determine the histology for this case. Code histology to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma] as stated in the pathology diagnosis.
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Breast Histo rules determine histology for the case.
Go to the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE CARCINOMA ONLY module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module from Rule H10 to Rule H19. You stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing.
Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified. According to the WHO Classification, metaplastic carcinoma is a general term for a group of neoplasms characterized by a mixture of adenocarcinoma with dominant areas of spindle cell, squamous, and/or mesenchymal differentiation.
","2011" "20110003","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Which MP/H rule applies and what is the histology code for a ""large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (arising in adenocarcinoma)""? See Discussion.","
Per the pathology report COMMENT section, ""In addition to usual adenocarcinoma, a significant portion of this tumor displays features consistent with large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, an aggressive neoplasm which has a poorer prognosis than adenocarcinoma of comparable stage.""
Is histology coded to 8574/3 [adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation] for this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Code histology to 8244/3 [composite carcinoid]. Rule H9 applies: Code 8244 [composite carcinoid] when the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. WHO describes these tumors as ""mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC)."" They have components of adenocarcinoma mixed with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), which can be either small cell or large cell.
The next version of the MP/H rules for colon will make this clear by adding a note regarding this issue to Rule H9.
","2011" "20110002","Surgery of Primary Site--Penis: How is CO2 laser treatment coded for penile cancer?","","Assign code 14 [laser] for CO2 laser treatment given for primary penile cancer. The CO2 is the method used to deliver the laser.","2011" "20100113","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
No. This is not a reportable hematologic condition. When you do not find a hematologic or lymphoid condition listed in the Heme DB, it is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is an uncommon hematologic disorder. The patient usually presents with fever, splenomegaly, and jaundice. Laboratory findings are lymphocytosis and histiocytosis. Pathology findings are hemophagocytosis.
Appendix F lists this term as non-reportable.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100112","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is C448 [overlapping lesion of skin] or C449 [skin, NOS] the appropriate site code for a 2008 diagnosis of mycosis fungoides involving over 40 percent of the skin surface, including both upper and lower extremities and trunk?","","Code the primary site to C449 [skin, NOS]. The code C448 should be used when there is a single overlapping lesion that includes all the disease. The patient has extensive skin coverage involving multiple skin subsites (upper and lower extremities and the trunk), but it is unlikely there is ONE plaque (one lesion) overlapping all these different skin subsites. The disease has more likely presented as multiple plaques (lesions) in these different areas.","2010" "20100111","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a ""myeloma, plasmablastic variant""?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma]. The plasmablastic subtype/variant does have a prognostic indication, but the disease is still coded as multiple myeloma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100110","Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms ""high grade dysplasia"" and ""severe dysplasia"" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.
","SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that ""high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract.""
There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term ""carcinoma in situ"" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?
","For cancer reporting purposes, the terms ""high grade dysplasia"" and ""severe dysplasia"" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.
Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because ""high grade dysplasia"" and ""severe dysplasia"" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.
NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466
","2010" "20100109","Reportability--Ovary: Does the ICD-O-3 term ""stromal endometriosis"" [8931/3] always imply a reportable malignant disease process if the pathologist also states there is ""no evidence of carcinoma"" in the same report? See Discussion.","ROS Final Diagnosis: LSO: Ovary with an endometriotic cyst (1.2 cm) and stromal endometriosis with multifocal papillary syncytial eosinophilic, clear cell and tubal metaplasia, no evidence of carcinoma.
COMMENT: There is extensive endometriosis involving the ovarian stroma and the ovarian surface. The ovarian stroma contains multiple cystic endometrial glands and surrounding endometrial type stroma with variable amounts of hemorrhage. There are non-cystic foci of endometriosis comprised of small, irregular glandular structures within the stroma. The lining of larger cyst/cysts is involved by a single layer of cuboidal to columnar cells with markedly eosinophilic cytoplasm in areas of serous (tubal) metaplasia and papillary projections suggestive of papillary syncytial metaplasia. Within these areas there is epithelial tufting and stratification, raising the consideration of proliferative/borderline change (which we cannot entirely exclude), however, given the background of endometriosis and morphologic similarity to papillary syncytial metaplasia in the endometrium, we favor that this is a non-neoplastic reactive change. There is no evidence of carcinoma.
","This case is not reportable. The pathologist states that there is no evidence of carcinoma. The ICD-O-3 matrix system applies, giving the pathologist the final say on behavior.","2010" "20100108","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a left occipital parietal area tumor stated to be a ""low grade neuroectodermal neoplasm most consistent with neuronal tumor but lacking classic features of ganglioma"" if the pathologist states the tumor is not malignant?","","Code 9505/0 [Ganglioglioma, benign] is the best option according to our pathology expert. He states, ""There recently has been a spate of tumors called low grade glio-neuronal tumors that are not PNETs and have no propensity to become malignant.""","2010" "20100107","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney, renal pelvis: How is histology coded for a tumor described as ""renal cell carcinoma, clear cell with rhabdoid features""? See Discussion.","Is the statement ""with __ features"" indicative of a specific type of renal cell carcinoma (that is not represented by a specific histology code) or a second histologic type? Per ICD-O, ""malignant rhabdoid tumor"" is coded 8963/3. ""Rhabdoid"" is not listed in Table 1 in the MP/H rules as a specific type of renal cell carcinoma.
","Rhabdoid features occur in about 5% of all renal cell cancers and indicate a more aggressive tumor. Per WHO, these tumors comprise approximately 2% of all pediatric tumors with a median diagnosis age of 1-2 years old. This diagnosis is highly suspect in patients over age 3. Most previously reported rhabdoid tumors over age 5 have subsequently proven to be renal medullary carcinomas.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the patient in this case is a child, apply Kidney Rule H7 and code histology to 8963/3 [malignant rhaboid tumor]. Otherwise, we strongly suggest you consult with the pathologist to determine if this is truly a rhabdoid rather than a medullary tumor.
","2010" "20100106","Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, ""positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma"" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only ""urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential""? See Discussion.","On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis ""positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma."" On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed ""urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential.""
SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?
","This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the ""gold standard."" When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.
","2010" "20100105","Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Is ""debulking"" of a primary brain tumor coded to 21 [subtotal resection of tumor] or 30 [gross resection of tumor]?","","Assign code 21 [subtotal resection of tumor, lesion, or mass]. Debulking removes as much of the tumor volume as possible in cases where it is not possible to remove the entire tumor. Debulking should improve the effectiveness of subsequent radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy.","2010" "20100104","Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase ""aberrant T-cell expression"" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is ""AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression""?","","Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells).","2010" "20100103","Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is gestational trophoblastic neoplasia reportable if there is no mention of metastasis but the patient has been treated with chemotherapy? See Discussion.","
Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. ""Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma.""
","Do not report gestational trophoblastic neoplasia unless stated to be malignant.","2010" "20100102","Behavior--Breast: How is behavior coded when a biopsy shows in situ carcinoma with a focus suspicious for invasion and a subsequent excision/resection shows only in situ carcinoma?","","Code this case as in situ. The specimen from the excision/resection is the more reliable source for determining behavior, compared to a biopsy, especially in this case where the behavior is ambiguous on the biopsy.","2010" "20100101","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 10/2010 diagnosis of accelerated phase of CML following a 4/2010 diagnosis of blast phase CML a new primary? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed in the blast phase of CML on a 4/2010 bone marrow biopsy. Pt failed Gleevec and progressed to the accelerated phase of CML in 10/2010.
Is this a single primary? This is not addressed in the hematopoietic rules. If this is a multiple primary, what rule should be applied?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2 this is a single primary because there is only a single histology represented for this case.
Under the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), NOS [9863/3 and chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive [9875/3] it indicates CML-blast phase, CML-accelerated phase and CML-chronic phase are all synonyms for CML, NOS. Any combination of these terms diagnosed represents one disease process. The Gleevec was given to prevent or delay progression to the accelerated phase.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100100","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a Langerhans cell histiocytosis diagnosed on an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone? See Discussion.","The patient had an excisional biopsy of the T8 vertebral bone, but no other tissue biopsy. The doctor confirms the case is malignant. However, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS is listed as /1 (borderline) in the ICD-O-3.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, do not use the ICD-O-3 book to determine the hematopoietic and lymphoid histology codes. Use the Hematopoietic Database and access it at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis] and the primary site for unifocal disease to C412 [bone, vertebral column]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, lytic bone lesions are the most common primary site.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100099","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should all cases of precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed 1/1/10 and later with histology coded to 9836/3 have the values changed to 9811/3 per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section or should they remain coded 9836/3.","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] which is the new classification for pre-BALL. The histology code 9836/3 is obsolete as of 2010 and should not be used for cases with diagnosis date after 12/31/2009.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100098","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2008 diagnosis of small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia that only involved the bone marrow? See Discussion.","A bone marrow biopsy was done on 6/18/2008 and showed only small B cell leukemia, most consistent with mantle cell leukemia. ICD-O-3 does not list a histology code for small B cell leukemia or mantle cell leukemia.","Code the histology to 9673/3 [mantle cell lymphoma] and the primary site to C421 [bone marrow].
Mantle cell lymphoma can present in a leukemic phase. The only code available is for mantle cell lymphoma and the only primary site that could be coded would be bone marrow.
","2010" "20100096","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries; follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) diagnosed within 21 days of one another and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute disease.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100095","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.
","Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.
In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.
On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.
Is this a new renal pelvis primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.
","2010" "20100094","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood equivalent to bone marrow biopsy for the purposes of Rule PH26 and code the primary site to C421 [Bone marrow] for a marginal zone lymphoma found in peripheral blood when there was no additional workup (e.g., scans, etc.) for this case?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Our hematopoietic specialty physicians state that involvement of peripheral blood is equivalent to bone marrow involvement because the marrow produces blood. In the absence of any other involvement, per Module 7 (Coding primary sites for lymphomas) Rule PH26, it states to code the primary site to bone marrow when the only involvement is bone marrow.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100093","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries: Please clarify how rule M10 for Other Sites was developed and how a ""recurrence"" of the tumor after one year was determined to be a new primary? See Discussion.
","What is the expected outcome or result of rule M10? Specifically, for soft tissue sarcomas, why is a recurrence after one year a new primary instead of a recurrence?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Rule M10, tumors occurring more than one year apart are multiple primaries, was developed to differentiate a new primary from a recurrence. The rule was developed with the concurrence of the CoC site-specialty physicians and the SEER consulting pathologist. There was agreement between all of the CoC site teams and the consulting pathologist that statements of recurrence should not be relied upon to rule out a new primary. The time limits for each site were set based on information from peer-reviewed articles on tumors occurring in the same site and studies using molecular studies to confirm whether or not the tumors were histologically similar. Determination of the time limit for the ""other sites"" rules was probably the most difficult because so many sites are involved. However, the specialty-physicians felt that one year was an appropriate length of time to apply to these sites.
","2010" "20100092","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site for the follicular lymphoma diagnosis be coded to C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when a bone marrow biopsy reveals both acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma? See Discussion.","Bone marrow biopsy reveals acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma. There were no other studies done, no chemo given, and the patient expired shortly after diagnosis. Should the follicular lymphoma be coded to a primary site C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS]?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Per Rule PH26, bone marrow is the primary site when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. All the available physical exams, scans, and other work-up must also be negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement. When there is no additional workup beyond the bone marrow biopsy and that biopsy is positive, code the primary site to bone marrow in those situations as well.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100091","Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned and how is histology coded when a patient has a history of chronic myelogenous leukemia diagnosed in 1997 and a ""blast crisis with myeloid markers"" of this disease in 2010? See Discussion.","The patient was initially diagnosed with CML in 1997. In February 2010 the disease went into a ""blast crisis with myeloid markers."" The patient received induction chemotherapy and the disease went back into a chronic phase. To capture the 2010 diagnosis of a blast crisis, is the histology code 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR/ABL1 positive] or 9861/3 [acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] used?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule M2, there is a single primary. Code histology to 9863/3 [CML, BCR-ABL1 status unknown, Blastic phase (BP)]. The blast phase is not recorded as a new primary because this disease does NOT change histologies.
Code 9875 [Chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive] does not apply to the 2010 diagnosis because BCR/ABL status unknown. Code 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS] also does not apply because the diagnosis was not acute.
It is not clear which chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) this patient has. Each CML is unique in that it has a blast phase without the histology itself changing. See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB under any of the chronic myelogenous leukemias for a further explanation of this disease process.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100090","MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of ""poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements""? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion.","Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used.","2010" "20100089","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded when lymphoma is initially found in both lymph nodes and bone marrow, the pathology report is unavailable, and the physician only states that both areas are involved? See Discussion.","For many consultations and/or class 2 cases, the pathology report is not available to help determine the primary site. Should the primary site be automatically coded to C421 over C77_ when both are involved? The Abstractor Notes state the primary site can be either bone marrow or lymph nodes. The physician states only that both are involved.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Because both the bone marrow and LN are involved, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] per Rule PH22. You are to code specific nodes if a specific region is specified; however, if no region is specified, code to lymph node, NOS [C779]). When you are having problems coding primary site, go to Module 7 Primary Site Rules for Lymphomas Only. See Rule PH26. It states that you code the primary site to bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100088","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient has 2005 diagnosis of multiple myeloma diagnosed returns in 2010 with extramedullary plasmacytoma and a bone marrow biopsy showing plasma cell dyscrasia that is clinically stated to ""consistent with a relapse of myeloma""? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed in 2005 with multiple myeloma and following stem cell transplant 2005 was in complete remission.
On 2/1/10 an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue right flank mass showed plasmacytoma. On 3/2/10 the bone marrow biopsy was stated to be consistent with plasma cell dyscrasia. An outside attending physician stated the bone marrow biopsy was consistent with a relapse of myeloma. There was no radiologic evidence of disease elsewhere as of Feb 2010, only the soft tissue right flank mass. Patient initially presented for post-op radiation to the right flank and was treated 3/29/10. On 8/6/10 a biopsy of a right perinephric mass was positive for plasmacytoma. Subsequent xray on 8/16/10 of the right tibia and fibula showed lytic lesion consistent with progression of myeloma.
Using the Hematopoietic Database, the plasmacytoma in 2/1/10 is a second primary. How do the rules apply to the perinephric soft tissue disease and right tibia lesion? Are they separate new primaries? Or is all of this simply a recurrence of the original 2005 diagnosis as the attending physician states?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession a single primary with the histology coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma]. The disease discovered in 2010 represents further advancement of former disease. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, it states that bone marrow involvement, lytic bone lesions, and bone tumor masses of plasma cells are common. Under the Recurrence and Metastases section in the Heme DB it further states that extramedullary (in tissue other than the bone) involvement is a generally a manifestation of advanced disease. This case is an example of such a situation.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100087","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for one patient with history of marginal zone lymphoma initially diagnosed in 1994, followed by a 2010 diagnosis of large B-cell lymphoma and another patient with both B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) in 2009? See Discussion.","Case 1 - Patient has a history of marginal zone lymphoma diagnosed in 1994 with recurrences in 2007 and 2009. The patient now presents for a bone marrow biopsy in May 2010 and is found to have large B-cell lymphoma, transformation. The first primary, marginal zone lymphoma, falls under the 2009 rules and the second primary, large B-cell lymphoma, falls under the 2010 and forward rules?
Case 2 - Patient was diagnosed with B-cell CLL/SLL and a DLBCL in 2009. If the 2009 rules only apply, these are a single primary. If the patient is admitted and treated in 2010 are the rules still based on the diagnosis date?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Case 1: Accession two primaries per Rule M10 when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma] represents a chronic neoplasm and the second primary is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] is an acute neoplasm which was diagnosed more than 21 days after the first primary.
Case 2: Do not use the Heme DB and Manual rules for this case. Both diagnoses were made prior to 2010. The Heme DB and Manual are only effective for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and forward. Use the ICD-O-3 Hematopoietic Primaries Table to determine the number of primaries for this case. Per the Table, a second diagnosis of DLBCL [9680/3] following a diagnosis of CLL/SLL [9823/3] is one primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100086","Multiple primaries/Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with mycosis fungoides in February 2010 and in May 2010 is diagnosed with peripheral T-cell lymphoma consistent with CD 30+ large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides? See Discussion","Patient was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides on 2/10/2010. On 5/11/2010 the patient underwent lymph node biopsies lymph nodes that were diagnosed as peripheral Tcell lymphoma consistent with CD 30+ large cell transformation of mycosis fungoides. There is no data on the ALK protein.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M15 which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of reportable primaries. The result is that mycosis fungoides [9700/3] and peripheral T-cell lymphoma [9702/3] represents two primaries.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100085","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these field coded when a biopsy of a substernal mass and the pericardium show T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia, the CT scan showed mediastinal and hilar adenopathy and no bone marrow biopsy was done?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9837/3 [T lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma].
To determine the primary site for leukemia/lymphoma histologies, first go to Module 4. Per Rule PH8, code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph nodes, tissue or organs are involved. To determine a more specific histology, go to Module 7, rules for coding primary site for lymphomas. Per Rule PH20, code the lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region are involved. Mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes are intrathoracic lymph nodes. The substernal mass is also intrathoracic and is presumed to be a lymph node mass which involved the pericardium. For this case, code the primary site to C771 [Intrathoracic lymph nodes].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100083","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of ""B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma""? See Discussion.","Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of ""B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma."" The oncology diagnosis is ""primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma.""
Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.
While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma ""compatible with"" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100082","Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion.","A patient is stated to have ""probable MDS"" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, ""anemia and thrombocytopenia."" The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, ""BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology.""","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100081","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.","This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, ""it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy."" The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.
Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, ""I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma.""
The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.
Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed myeloma.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100080","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the term ""thrombocytopenia"" equivalent to the term ""refractory thrombocytopenia"" and should be a subsequent primary if it follows a treated diagnosis of pancreatic cancer?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Thrombocytopenia NOS is not a reportable diagnosis per Appendix F. Thrombocytopenia and Refractory Thrombocytopenia are not the same disease.
Thrombocytopenia is caused by a decreased number of platelets in the blood. Non-malignant causes include disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), drug-induced non-immune thrombocytopenia, drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia, hypersplenism, immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and infections of the bone marrow.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100079","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does the fact that the Hematopoietic Database states the ICD-O-3 code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] mean that the ICD-O-3 books should be updated to indicate that as of 2010 the code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] is no longer applicable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS [9970/1] is not a reportable neoplasm. There are also new codes that define lymphoproliferative disorder/disease more specifically. If you do a ""smart search"" and enter only the word ""lymphoproliferative"" into the Heme DB, you will get a listing of all of the reportable and non-reportable terms. That enables you to look at your record and compare the words in the Heme DB to those in the record you are reviewing.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100078","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of squamous carcinoma and large cell undifferentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H7 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma]. See Chart 1, the histology tree in lung equivalent terms. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is histology code 8013/3. The other histology is squamous carcinoma, 8070/3. 8070/3 is higher numerically than 8013/3.","2010" "20100077","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would it be correct to apply rule M5 for a recurrence and abstract a single primary when a patient has a history of Hodgkin disease diagnosed in 2005 followed by a diagnosis of ""recurrent Hodgkin and EBV+ Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma"" in 2010? See Discussion.","Does Rule M5 only apply if both diseases are present at the original diagnosis, or does it also take into account a recurrence of an old disease? The answer to this question makes a difference between stopping at rule M5 and abstracting as one disease, or going on to rule M15 to query the Hematopoietic Database to determine whether the patient has two separate primaries.
Example: Patient had Stage II Hodgkin disease in 2005 (all lymph nodes above diaphragm, supraclavicular LN biopsied at diagnosis), treated and patient achieved complete remission. In 2010, the patient is admitted for suspected recurrence. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy showed, ""Recurrent Hodgkin"" AND ""EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma,"" both in the same lymph node. Applying rule M5, this is a single primary and states not to query the DB. However, this doesn't seem correct as it does not account for the new DLBCL.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
You must first determine the histology codes for each occurrence of lymphoma. The 2005 diagnosis was stated to be Hodgkin disease (NOS) [9650/3]. The 2010 diagnosis was Hodgkin and EBV + diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (two histologies). Per Rule M5 the 2010 diagnosis is a single primary because the Hodgkin and the non-Hodgkin (DLBCL) were simultaneously present in the same lymph node. Per Rule PH14, a Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin simultaneously present in the same location should be coded to 9596/3 [B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable].
Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of 9596/3 in 2010 that followed a diagnosis of 9650/3 in 2005. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primary Calculator to determine the number of primaries, which indicates the 9596/3 is a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100076","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If not specified as primary, idiopathic, or essential, is thrombocytosis, NOS reportable?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless the disease is specified as primary, idiopathic, essential, or the physician states there is a myeloproliferative neoplasm, the term thrombocytosis, NOS is not reportable. Thrombocytosis, NOS, is the presence of high platelet counts in the blood. Thrombocytosis can be associated with chronic infections and other diseases as well as with myeloproliferative disease. Thrombocytosis, NOS is listed in Appendix F as a Non-Reportable Term.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100075","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)?","1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term ""blast phase of CML"" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?
Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14.
The histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].
The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.
The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ."" Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 ""This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML.""
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100074","Laterality--Melanoma: For a melanoma case, does the term ""mid"" imply that the tumor is in the midline when the site is the skin of back (trunk)?","","Yes. When the location is described as mid-back or mid-chest with no indication of left or right, assign laterality code 5 [midline].","2010" "20100073","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on 4/7/10 by a bone marrow biopsy with myelodysplastic syndrome, refractory anemia (RAEB2) and on a 7/27/10 bone marrow biopsy with progression to acute myelogenous leukemia with 40% blasts (AML)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Accession two primaries per Rule M10, the first is a chronic neoplasm RAEB2 [9983/3] and the second is an acute neoplasm AML, NOS [9861/3]. Rule M10 states abstract as multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed in a chronic phase (MDS RAEB2) and an acute disease (AML) is diagnosed more than 21 days later. This is the rule that fits your case.
There are several important pieces of information. There were two bone marrows biopsies; one confirmed the chronic disease and a second confirmed the acute disease. The dates of the bone marrows are more than 3 months apart. Because you have a chronic and an acute disease, Rules M8-M13 in the coding manual apply.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100072","Histology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in situ of the gallbladder reportable for 2010? See Discussion.","Coding the histology to 9690 [Follicular lymphoma] with a behavior of 2 [in situ] causes many edits including SEER and CS edits to fail. According to the chief of pathology, this is a recently identified pathologic entity.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Currently, lymphoma in situ is not reportable. It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100071","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed in February 2010 with a plasmacytoma of the frontal skull followed by a diagnosis of smoldering myeloma by bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.","The patient had a diagnosis of solitary plasmacytoma of the right frontal skull in 2/2010 that was totally resected (the cranial specimen final diagnosis was plasmacytoma). The patient received radiation. While undergoing radiation, the patient was seen by a medical oncologist who did a bone marrow biopsy that revealed 10-15% plasma cells, and was called smoldering myeloma. Watchful waiting was recommended. In 8/2010, the patient had multiple lytic lesions and began systemic treatment.
Per rule M15 and the Multiple primary calculator, 9731/3 [plasmacytoma] and 9732/3 [smoldering myeloma] is accessioned as two primaries. When the manual states, ""Use the Hematopoietic Database to determine the primary site and histology when PH1-PH29 do not apply,"" does this mean to use the calculator not the database itself? By the old rules this was one primary. Did this change for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later? Which M rule is the correct rule to apply?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The smoldering myeloma is a second primary per Rule M10. Accession as multiple primaries because this case was originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (plasmacytoma)phase and there was a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (multiple myeloma) more than 21 days after chronic diagnosis. See note 1 which indicates, ""This is a change from previous rules."" Note that the MP rules and the MP calculator in the Heme DB agree.
When the rules tell you to go to the DB to determine the histology and primary site, you use the DB information. (Don't forget to check the Abstractor Notes). The multiple primaries calculator is used to determine the number of primaries to abstract. Always use the M rules before using the MP calculator.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100070","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a follicular lymphoma, grade 2 of 3, predominantly nodular?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9691/3 [Follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Nodular lymphoma is an obsolete term once used to describe follicular lymphoma. (See Appendix A, Table A3)
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100069","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when a 5/26/10 colonoscopy reveals ulcers in the cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon and, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [9971/3]?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C189 [Colon, NOS] per Rule PH1.
Code the primary site to C189 [Colon, NOS] and not C188 [Colon, overlapping lesion] because there are multiple ulcers in different segments of the colon. The .8 code is used only for a single lesion that overlaps subsites.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100068","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder, NOS, that is never specified as acute or chronic but was treated with Hydrea? See Discussion.","The hematology oncologist referred to the case as a JAK-2 positive myeloproliferative disorder. It is never called acute or chronic. JAK-2 test was positive for mutation, and the bone marrow report indicates, ""Morphological features can be seen in myeloproliferative neoplasm."" Flow cytometry report indicates, ""The flow data demonstrate neutrophilia with left shift. Lymphocytes are composed of a mixed population of T and B-cells with some atypical B-cells."" The patient is subsequently treated with Hydrea.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the histology to 9975/3 [myeloproliferative/myelodysplastic neoplasm, unclassifiable] which is a new code implemented in 2010. Myeloproliferative disorder NOS is equivalent to myeloproliferative disease which is listed as a synonym for code 9975/3.
When the disease is diagnosed very early, it may manifest symptoms of two or more specific myeloproliferative neoplasms. As the disease progresses, it will manifest the symptoms of one of the specific MPN subtypes. When a more specific diagnosis becomes available, change the histology code to the more specific MPN code as directed in the PH rules. That is the scenario you describe. JAK-2 is positive, but the physician does not designate PV or ET. Hydrea is treatment for both PV and ET. In the future, the specific type of MPN may be diagnosed. In the interim, code the only diagnosis you have, MPN, NOS.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100067","MP/H Rules/Reportability--Ovary: Should an ovarian tumor with the histology of mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma be accessioned based on the presence of a foci of intraepithelial carcinoma? See Discussion.","The final diagnosis on the pathology report, ""Omentum: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma. Peritoneal fluid for cytology: neoplastic cells present; low grade serous neoplasm. Lymph nodes, right pelvic: one lymph node harboring implants of serous borderline tumor and endosalpingiosis within the subcapsular sinus. Bilateral fallopian tubes and ovaries: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving ovarian surface and serosal surface of the tube. Detached fragment of borderline tumor within the tubal lumen. Uterus, cervix, and segment of colon: mixed epithelial borderline tumor with multiple foci of intraepithelial carcinoma involving parametrial and paracervical tissue, cul de sac, uterine and colonic serosa. Nine pericolonic lymph nodes negative for tumor. Stage III.
I&R # 45622 asked if a mucinous borderline tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion is reportable. The answer given on that site was that the case is not reportable. According to MPH, FORDS, and Collaborative Stage, intraepithelial carcinoma is in situ, behavior code 2, and is reportable. Has this changed?
","This case is reportable because there is a diagnosis of carcinoma (intraepithelial carcinoma).","2010" "20100066","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be accessioned if two tumors are present in the same breast, a 1.7 cm colloid carcinoma and a 1.5 cm colloid carcinoma with infiltrating ductal carcinoma? See Discussion.","If a patient has two masses in the same breast with different histology codes and different sizes, should this be accessioned as two primaries? Or should this be a single primary based on the largest tumor size or numerically higher histology code?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract this case as two primaries.
Mucinous/colloid carcinoma of the breast is rare. The first tumor describes (1.7 cm) fits this criteria because the pathologist simply says mucinous carcinoma. The diagnostic criteria for mucinous carcinoma is that pools of extracellular mucin make up at least 1/3 of the volume throughout the tumor mass. If focal areas are not at least 33% mucinous, the designation is a mixed mucinous/ductal. That fits the second tumor (1.5 cm).
For this case, you must get the histology codes for both tumors in order to use the Multiple Primary rules. Per H14 the first tumor is coded mucinous carcinoma [8480/3]. Per H17 the second tumor is coded duct carcinoma mixed with any other carcinoma [8523/3]. Now go to the MP rules. Per M12 abstract this case as multiple primaries because the ICD-O-3 histology codes are different at the second and third digit.
","2010" "20100065","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS"" synonymous with ""myeloproliferative syndrome"" and ""myeloproliferative disease"" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term ""myeloproliferative syndrome"" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms ""myeloproliferative syndrome"" and ""myeloproliferative disease"" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100064","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology to be coded for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and/or precursor B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Pre-B ALL) for cases diagnosed 2010 and later? The Heme Database has two histology codes for this disease, both 9811/3 and 9836/3, which is the correct histology code?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS].
See the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, when determining how to code histology for a case. It indicates the code 9811/3 is effective for cases diagnosed 2010 and forward. The 9836/3 is listed as obsolete and refers you to code 9811/3. Make sure to check for a specific subtype of B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma [9812/3 - 9818/3] before assigning the NOS code [9811/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100063","Primary Site-Lung: Can you use a lung subsite code for a histologically confirmed lung primary when a CT scan indicates a sized mass located in one lobe of the lung as well as ""too numerous to count nodules"" through one or both lungs? See Discussion.","For example, chest CT shows ""1.6 cm RUL suspicious mass and too numerous to count nodules throughout both lungs."" Core biopsy of mass in the RUL compatible with adenocarcinoma.","For lung primaries with one large mass and numerous nodules, code the primary site to the subsite where the large mass is located. For your example, code the primary site to C341 [upper lobe of lung]. Note: This answer does NOT mean that the other nodules are primary or metastatic cancer.","2010" "20100062","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded when there is a lung biopsy compatible with non-small cell carcinoma and regional lymph node biopsies compatible with adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.","Which histology has priority when the pathology specimens reveal different histologies in the primary site and the regional lymph node? Do we assume the lung biopsy is the most representative tumor specimen because it is from the primary site and code to 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] or should we use rule H5 and code to 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] because adenocarcinoma is a more specific histology than non-small cell carcinoma?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology based on a pathology report from the primary site whenever possible. Code histology to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] for the case example provided.","2010" "20100061","MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of ""Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)"". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion.","Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28.","We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading ""Changing Information on the Abstract.""","2010" "20100059","Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How should this field be coded when the procedure is stated to be a ""stereotactic CORE biopsy"" of a brain tumor? See Discussion.","The most recent version of the Brain Site Specific Surgery schema has a note that states ""Assign code 20 [Local excision of tumor, lesion, or mass, excisional biopsy] for stereotactic biopsy of brain tumor."" Does this also apply to a stereotactic CORE biopsy?
SINQ 20081118 also states that a stereotactic biopsy should be coded as Surgery of Primary Site code 20.
","Assign code 20 [Local excision of tumor, lesion, or mass, excisional biopsy] for a stereotactic core biopsy of brain tumor.","2010" "20100058","Grade: Can the nuclear grade value be coded in the grade field for any site, or is it restricted to sites where it is specifically listed as an option in the coding manual, i.e., breast, kidney, urinary sites, etc.?","","There is no restriction on sites for which nuclear grade can be coded in the grade field. If both differentiation and nuclear grade are specified, differentiation takes priority.","2010" "20100057","First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the use of the corticosteroid, Clobetasol, cancer-directed treatment for mycosis fungoides or is it only used to treat the side effects of that disease?","","Clobetasol is not cancer-directed treatment at this time.
Note: Question originally submitted in 2010. During 2014 review, this was checked and Clobetasol is still not cancer directed treatment for Mycosis Fungoides.
","2010" "20100056","Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a case with pathologic diagnosis of ""anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative"" involving the brain and a clinical statement of involvement in the right inguinal lymph nodes and the right lower extremity by a cutaneous lymphoma? See Discussion.
","The final diagnosis on the pathology report for a brain biopsy is ""Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative."" Per a progress note: right inguinal lymphadenopathy. CT scan is consistent with multiple lymph node groups enlarged. Right lower extremity cutaneous nodular lesion; cutaneous lesions likely cutaneous lymphoma.
Should the histology be coded 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative], and the primary site C447 [skin of leg]? Or is the physician using ""cutaneous lymphoma"" as a general term indicating infiltration and the primary site is really C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code to primary site to C447 [skin of leg]) per Rule PH25 and histology to 9702/3 [anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-negative]. Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, these are the usual presentations for this disease. It also states this disease presents with peripheral node involvement and is often generalized with infiltrates in the bone marrow, liver, spleen, and extranodal tissue. Less frequently involved sites are lung, salivary gland and CNS.
Per PH25, code the primary site to the organ when the lymphoma is present in an organ (skin, right leg) and that organ's regional lymph nodes (inguinal). Distant lymph nodes or other organs may also be involved, but should be disregarded for coding primary site.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100054","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a pathology specimen reveals an infiltrating mammary carcinoma with mixed tubular and lobular features, 2.3 cm, low grade cribriform in situ ductal carcinoma, and Paget disease of the overlying skin with ulceration? See Discussion.","According to SINQ 20081134 the histology would be 8524 if this is one primary.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary.
In order to determine whether this case represents a single or multiple primary, you must first determine the correct histology code for the underlying tumor. Using rule H9, ignore the DCIS.
See Table 3 in the equivalent terms and definitions. Infiltrating lobular, tubular, and Paget are coded to a single histology code (8524/3). Our current multiple primary rules do not say infiltrating lobular and tubular and Paget are a single primary. This was an omission and will be corrected in a future revision. Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention.
","2010" "20100053","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded for a myeloid sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) arising in the chest wall in a patient that has a negative bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with Myeloid Sarcoma (granulocytic sarcoma) by chest wall biopsy. This is an extramedullary manifestation of acute leukemia and is not in the bone marrow (bone marrow is negative).
How should primary site be coded? The Heme DB states that almost any part of the body can be involved. It also states to not code primary site to C421. In this case the only involvement is the chest wall [C493]. However, use of the primary site code C493 triggers an edit error questioning this site/histology combination. If the primary site is coded to C421 [bone marrow], there is no edit error. Please explain the site code and rationale.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Unless there are scans showing involvement of a lymph node or tissue other than the chest wall, the histology should be coded myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] and the primary site to C493 [soft tissue of chest wall]. Per Rule PH 30, use the Heme DB to determine primary site and histology when rules PH1-PH29 to not apply. Override the edit.
Per the Abstractor Notes section in Heme DB, for myeloid sarcoma [9930/3] the most frequently affected sites are skin, lymph nodes, gastrointestinal tract, soft tissue, and testis.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100052","Reportability/Primary Site: What is the reportability status and primary site for a papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue arising in an otherwise benign mature monodermal cystic teratoma (struma ovarii)? See Discussion.","Final diagnosis on the pathology report states, ""One ovary showing mature monodermal cystic teratoma composed of thyroid tissue (struma ovarii)."" The pathology COMMENT section states, ""There is a 0.1 cm focus of thyroid tissue within the struma ovarii showing cytologic features of papillary carcinoma. This finding is likely of no clinical consequence.""","A papillary carcinoma of thyroid tissue in benign struma ovarii (mature cystic teratoma) is reportable.
These ovarian tumors contain a diversity of tissues including hair, teeth, bone, thyroid, etc. This reportable malignancy arose in thyroid tissue within the ovarian tumor. Code the primary site to ovary. Code to the actual organ in which the cancer arose. This will keep the case in the appropriate category for surgery coding, regional nodes, staging, etc.
","2010" "20100050","Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report?
","","Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2015
Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.
Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor.
","2010" "20100049","Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a lymph node biopsy reveals ""malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and follicular T-cell lymphoma,"" the bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement, and the oncologist states this patient has ""peripheral T-cell lymphoma""? See Discussion.
","CT scan showed retroperitoneal and inguinal adenopathy. Right inguinal lymph node biopsy revealed ""malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma and follicular t-cell lymphoma."" Flow cytometry studies showed no evidence of B-cell lymphoma and atypical CD3+/CD10+/CD7-/CD4+/CD56+ T cells are detected (19%). The bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement. Patient was staged as Stage II Peripheral T-Cell lymphoma by the oncologist and started chemotherapy.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the oncologist's clinical diagnosis of peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
The definition for this neoplasm is ""A large group of lymphomas which we collectively refer to as peripheral T-cell lymphomas with the optional addition of ""unspecified"" to emphasize that these cases do not belong to any better defined entities. Attempts to distinguish between them on morphological basis have met with poor reproducibility.""
Per the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB: Patients present with peripheral LN involvement. The diagnosis of PTCL, NOS is made ONLY when other specific entities have been explored.
This fits your case; attempts to find a more specific disease (flow cytometry; BM biopsy) were negative and gave no further information that could be used to assign a more specific classification.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100048","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a patient diagnosed with Langerhans cell histocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma involving both the seventh rib and the right temporal bone? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma following a biopsy of the seventh rib on 3/22/10. On 4/13/10 the patient had a right external ear canal mass (right temporal bone) biopsy with same diagnosis. Should the primary site be coded to bone, NOS [C419]?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Per Rule PH30, use the Heme DB to determine the primary and code it to bone, NOS [C419]. Langerhans cell histiocytosis can occur as a solitary lesion, multifocal lesions, or multisystem disease. In this case, the patient has multifocal disease of the bone. The abstractor notes in the Hematopoietic DB were used as a reference for this answer.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100047","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is ""myelodysplasia"" a reportable disease?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
The diagnosis of ""myelodysplasia"" is not reportable.
Myelodysplasia covers a group of disorders that result in the inability to produce enough healthy mature blood cells. Those disorders include: anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, MDS, refractory anemia, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia. Follow-back to the physician is necessary to determine whether or not a particular case represents a malignancy.
""Myelodysplasia"" is also listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100046","Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to ""disease free"" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.
","For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be ""not disease free""? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to ""NED or disease free?"" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated.
","The term ""disease free"" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.
Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term ""disease free"" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease.
","2010" "20100045","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded for a pathologic diagnosis of ""B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between DLBCL and Burkitt lymphoma"" that was clinically referred to as a ""double hit lymphoma""?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)]. Per the Alternate Names section in the Heme DB, B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma is one of the synonyms for for DLBCL.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100044","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C499 [Blood vessels, NOS] for a case of intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant [9712/3] found in the bone marrow and liver? See Discussion.","Patient has biopsy proven intravascular large B cell lymphoma, Asian variant, (9712/3) in bone marrow and liver. The Hematopoietic Database does not give a primary site code. Should the primary site be coded C49.9 because, by definition, this lymphoma arises in the blood vessels?","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code primary site to C499 [blood vessels]. The definition in the Heme DB does specify that this type of extranodal large B-cell lymphoma is characterized by lymphoma cells within the lumina of blood vessels with the exception of larger arteries and veins. The reason no primary site is specified is that Western variant can originate in the skin or CNS.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100043","Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: When only pathology reports are available, how should the primary site be coded when a both a bone marrow biopsy and colon biopsy demonstrate ""mantle cell lymphoma""?
","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
For this case, code primary site to C189 [colon, NOS] per Rule PH24.
Mantle cell lymphoma usually begins with lymph node involvement and spreads to other tissue. However, it can begin in a lymphocyte such as those in the GI tract. Per the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, patients usually present with advanced disease. About half will have some combination of B symptoms. Swelling of lymph nodes and spleen are usually present. Bone marrow, liver and GI tract involvement occurs in a very high percentage
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100042","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Given that there appears to be many differences in the reportability of these case types pre- and post-2010 (e.g., [refractory] thrombocytopenia), is there a list available that gives the reportability dates for these diseases? See Discussion.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2010 ""thrombocytopenia"" was not reportable. According to the Heme Database, the term ""refractory thrombocytopenia"" is now reportable for cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later. It would be helpful to have a list of diagnosis date requirements for the different hematopoietic diseases.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Thrombocytopenia (NOS) is not reportable per Appendix F. However, the term ""refractory thrombocytopenia"" [9992/3] is reportable for cases diagnosed 2010 or later.
There has been no change in the reportability for thrombocytopenia. The hematopoietic ""help"" system lists all of the synonyms, variants, and abbreviations for diseases.
See the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual for changes in reportability associated with these cases.
Terms and codes in Appendix D are effective 01/01/10 and later. Refractory thrombocytopenia is included in D1a and D1b. The notes for D1a and D1b provide explanation and reiterate the dates these terms are effective.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100041","Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are ""anemia of chronic disorders"" or ""hemolytic anemia"" reportable given that a search of the Hematopoietic Database returns many different reportable conditions but no exact terminology match for either diagnosis? See Discussion.
","Searching the Heme Database for the term ANEMIA OF CHRONIC DISORDERS yields 71 results. However, none of the results match the terminology entered, yet all 71 ""matched terms"" are reportable. Is this diagnosis reportable?
Another example is HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA. The search results showed 28 ""matched terms"" which are all reportable, but none are exact matches.
Please clarify how we should interpret the results of these searches when using the Heme Database.
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Neither diagnosis is reportable. Anemia of chronic disorder or disease is seen when a patient has a chronic immune disorder or a malignancy; the anemia itself is not a malignancy. Hemolytic anemia can be caused by many conditions, but is not malignant.
The problem you are having using the Heme DB is that you are searching for the entire term such as ""anemia of chronic disorder."" The DB search engine is not the same as those used in Google or other widely used internet search engines. The words lymphoma, leukemia, etc. are so common in the DB that the traditional search is not effective.
In order to make your search easier, search on a unique word. For example, for ""anemia of chronic disorder"" search on the words (use the quotes) ""anemia of"" and for the term hemolytic anemia, search on ""hemolytic"" By using the unique word search you will cut down on the number of terms displayed. If you do get several terms, click on ""Name"" in the header and all of the results will be alphabetized for quick identification. You may also use the ""diseases matching any term"" or the ""disease match all terms"" options to narrow down the results when searching the whole term phrase.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100040","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a patient with a negative bone marrow and multiple plasmacytomas in different bone sites (e.g., thoracic vertebrae and left femur)?","","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Code the primary site to C419 [Bone, NOS] and the histology to 9731/3 [solitary plasmacytoms].
The vertebral lesions are common for plasmacytomas, as are lesions of the femur. If the patient does not meet the criteria of plasma cell myeloma/multiple myeloma (which is 20% of the leukocyte differential count), do not code the histology to multiple myeloma.
Per Rule M2, abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.
Per Rule PH3, code the primary site to the where the plasmacytoma originated and code the histology of bone () when the diagnosis is multiple plasmacytomas of the bone.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100039","Casefinding--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the 2010 casefinding code of 289.6 (Familial Polycythemia) addressed anywhere in the Hematopoietic Database? See Discussion.
","When you enter ""familial polycythemia"" into the Heme DM, polycythemia vera (PV) appears; however, the term ""familial polycythemia"" is not listed as one of the synonyms for PV.
","Familial polycythemia by itself is not reportable. This is a benign condition which occurs within families. Familial polycythemia can progress to polycythemia vera (9950/3), which would then be reportable. The code, 289.6, which is the ICD-9-CM code for Familial polycythemia is not included on the reportable list for casefinding. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for Polycythemia vera, 238.4. ""Familial polycythemia"" is listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.
","2010" "20100038","Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: Is a prostate saturation biopsy coded under diagnostic biopsy or surgery?","","A prostate saturation biopsy is a transperineal template-guided stereotactic saturation prostate biopsy that typically produces 30 to 80 core biopsies. This is an alternative biopsy technique used for some high-risk patients including men with persistently elevated PSA, those who have atypia on prior prostate biopsies, or men with biopsies showing high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Although this is a different procedure, it is still a diagnostic biopsy. Do not code prostate saturation biopsy under Surgery of Primary Site.","2010" "20100037","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 who had a 2010 biopsy consistent with the fibrotic stage for a chronic myeloproliferative disorder that ""suggests the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia""? See Discussion.
","Patient had a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 and was treated with Hydroxyurea. In 2010, the patient was admitted with severe bone pain and a diagnosis described as, ""The overall features of the biopsy are consistent with a fibrotic stage of a chronic myeloproliferative disorder. The presence of up to 15% CD34+ immature cells seen in the biopsy suggests that the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia."" In addition, cytogenetic studies and molecular testing for JAK2 were ordered. These findings confirmed a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 mutation was not detected. The patient died within 2 weeks. Is this a new primary?
Was this patient diagnosed with AML (which requires 20% or more blasts and this is only 15%)? If this is a new primary, is the histology 9861/3 [AML, NOS] or 9895/3 [AML with myelodysplasia-related changes]? Was the second diagnosis of AML definitively diagnosed?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002. The 2010 diagnosis is chronic myeloproliferative disorder [9960/3].
According to Rule M15, the Multiple Primaries Calculator is to be used to first determine the number of primaries. Per the calculator, essential thrombocythemia and chronic myeloproliferative disorder are the same primary. (Acute myeloid leukemia is not used as the second histology because it is preceded by a non-reportable ambiguous term, ""suggests."" ""Suggests"" is not on the list of reportable ambiguous terms in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual.
In 2010, this patient was in a late stage of ET. When any of the specific MPN neoplasms such as ET are in the late stage of disease, the characteristics of the specific disease (ET) will no longer be detectable. Accordingly, for this patient the diagnostic testing was positive for MPN, unclassifiable. In this case, do not change the diagnosis from the more specific disease (ET) to the NOS (MPN, unclassifiable).
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100036","Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term ""pattern"" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion.","In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?
Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.
Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term ""pattern"" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?
","Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term ""pattern"" to infer in situ behavior.
Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided.
","2010" "20100035","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion.","The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?
Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules.","2010" "20100034","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Esophagus: Should two separate nodules of adenocarcinoma with one at the GE junction [C160] and one arising in Barretts esophagus of the distal esophagus [C155] be accessioned as a single primary because these sites are now grouped together in the same stage grouping per the AJCC 7th Edition? See Discussion.","Per notes included in CSv2, the cardia/EGJ, and the proximal 5cm of the fundus and body of the stomach [C16.0-C16.2] have been moved from the Stomach chapter and added to the Esophagus chapter effective with AJCC TNM 7th Edition. A new schema, EG Junction, was created in CSv2 to accommodate this change. Tumors arising at the EGJ, or arising in the stomach within 5 cm of the EGJ and crossing the EGJ are staged using the schema for EG Junction. MP/H Rule M11 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxxx) and/or third characters (Cxxx) are multiple primaries.
In light of the fact that tumors of the GE junction are now included with tumors of the esophagus in AJCC 7th Edition, will the MP/H rules also be adjusted to reflect that change?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the multiple primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Use staging resources for staging. Abstract two primaries for the case example using Rule M11.","2010" "20100033","Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a case described as follicular lymphoma, grade 3a/3 [9698/3], with focal areas of diffuse large B cell lymphoma [9680/3] (approximately 10%)? Does the term ""focal"" have the same significance in Heme cases as it does for solid tumors? See Discussion.
","Per rule PH11, ""Code the primary site to the site of origin (lymph node region(s), tissue, or organ) and code the histology diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.""
Should the focal diffuse large B cell lymphoma be ignored in this case and rule PH11 not be applied? To apply rule PH11, does the follicular lymphoma have to be NOS [9690/3] or does PH11 include all grades of follicular lymphoma [9695/3, 9691/3, 9698/3]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
First, you need to determine how many primaries are to be accessioned. Per Rule M4, abstract a single primary* when two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are simultaneously present in the same anatomic location(s), such as the same lymph node or lymph node region(s), the same organ(s), and/or the same tissue(s).
Code the histology to 9680/3 [Diffuse large B cell lymphoma] per rule PH11 when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow. Follicular lymphoma (FL), which is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma, includes FL, NOS, FL grade 1, FL grade 2 and FL grade 3.
Focal, foci, and focus are not used in the hematopoietic rules, meaning that you DO NOT ignore histology terms described as focal, foci, or focus.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100032","First course treatment--Prostate: Is Degarelix coded as hormonal treatment for prostate cancer?","","Code the administration of Degarelix in the ""Hormone Therapy"" field. Assign code 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy]. This drug will be added to the next update of SEER*Rx.","2010" "20100031","First course treatment--Anus: Is the topical application of trichloroacetic acid to an anal condyloma with AIN III first course treatment coded to 10 [Local tumor destruction, NOS] in the Surgery of Primary Site field?
","","Code the trichloroacetic acid treatment of reportable AIN III in the ""Other Therapy"" field. Assign code 1 [Other].
","2010" "20100029","MP/H Rules/Histology--Corpus uteri: How should histology be coded and how many primaries should be accessioned for an endometrial primary in which curettings showed malignant mixed mullerian tumor (carcinosarcoma) but hysterectomy specimen showed endometrioid adencarcinoma? See Discussion.","The pathology report COMMENT for the hysterectomy specimen stated that the previous curettage was reviewed. The findings are compatible with malignant mixed mullerian tumor. No residual features of malignant mixed mullerian tumor are found in the current resection, which shows FIGO grade I adenocarcinoma in the wall of the uterus. The malignant mixed Mullerian tumor appears to have been removed with the curettage. There is no information available regarding the number of tumors in these specimens.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract a single primary. Rule M1 applies because there is no information on the number of tumors and there is no way to know whether the curettage sample was from a separate tumor or from the tumor in the hysterectomy specimen.
Apply rule H17 and code histology to 8980/3 for malignant mixed Mullerian tumor [Carcinosarcoma, NOS].
","2010" "20100028","Primary site/Histology--Head & Neck: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis for a skull based mass is ""neuroendocrine carcinoma"" and the IHC studies are incompatible with a brain/spinal cord primary (ependymoma)? See Discussion.
","The pathology report final diagnosis is, ""skull base mass, biopsy: neuroendocrine carcinoma, see note. NOTE: Ancillary IHC studies reveal ...the IHC signature is incompatible with ependymoma. The constellation of findings is diagnostic of well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma.""
The site/histology combination of C410 and 8246/3 is 'impossible' by SEER edits. There is no override. What is the correct primary site and histology?
","According to our subject matter expert physician, this unusual case is most likely a sino-nasal tumor (some variant of esthesioneuroblastoma [olfactory neuroblastoma]). Code to nasal cavity [C300] as indicated in ICD-O-3 by site-associated topography code attached to the morphology code for olfactory neuroblastoma [9522/3].
","2010" "20100027","Reportability: Is AIN III reportable if it arises in the perianal skin? See Discussion.","Physical exam states patient has a suspicious area of anal skin. Operative findings show a raised, suspicious lesion in the right perianal region. Our interpretation of the primary site would be skin and therefore not reportable. However, the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicates ""AIN III/squamous cell carcinoma with focal areas suspicious for microinvasion. ""SINQ #20041056 states that AIN III is reportable.","AIN III of the anus or anal canal (C210-C211) is reportable. AIN III (8077) arising in perianal skin (C445) is not reportable.","2010" "20100026","Multiplicity Counter--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: How many times is this field updated after an invasive primary is originally diagnosed? Should subsequently diagnosed in situ tumors to be included in this field? See Discussion.","How should the Multiplicity Counter be coded when a patient has a renal pelvis primary [C659] diagnosed 1/23/08. The patient had one tumor, invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney. In 6/1/09, a TURBT showed three separate high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ lesions on the right side of the bladder, the largest tumor being 7mm. In 2/8/10, another TURBT showed one lesion on the left side of bladder, high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ, tumor was 4mm. These are all a single primary per rule M8.","Code multiplicity counter 04. Count both invasive and in situ tumors.
Multiplicity counter would have been coded 01 in 2008. Add the three in situ tumors diagnosed in 2009 to the first tumor and update multiplicity counter to 04. Make only one update to multiplicity counter. Because the multiplicity counter was updated once, the fifth tumor diagnosed in 2010 does not need to be added.
","2010" "20100025","MP/H Rules/Primary site--Kidney, Renal Pelvis: Should the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] for a primary renal pelvis tumor after additional tumors are found months later in different urinary sites (e.g., bladder or ureter) and the MP/H Rules indicate these are all the same primary? See Discussion.
","In a patient is diagnosed 1/29/08 with an invasive grade 3 of 3 papillary urothelial cell carcinoma arising in the depth of a calyx in mid portion of kidney, the primary site was coded C659 [Renal pelvis]. In 6/1/09 a TURBT showed three separate lesions on the right side of the bladder. The final diagnosis was high grade urothelial carcinoma in-situ with three tumors, the largest being 7mm. Per rule M8, the renal pelvis primary and subsequent bladder tumors are the same primary. Would the primary site be changed to C689 [Urinary system, NOS] when the bladder tumors were identified? Or is C689 only coded if more than one primary site is involved at diagnosis?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. This is a single primary. The primary site was coded to C659 in 2008. Do not change the primary site code.
","2010" "20100024","Histology: How is this field coded for a perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential that is malignant based on the presence of metastases? See Discussion.
","In 11/2006 the patient had surgery for a 6cm mass in the RUQ arising in the falciform ligament. The pathologic final diagnosis was: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) of uncertain malignant potential. In 10/2009 a liver biopsy showed metastatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm.
","Assign histology code 8005/3 [malignant clear cell tumor]. According to our expert pathology consultant, this is the best histology code available at this time for the occasional tumor which is designated as malignant. The appearance of metastatic disease clearly defines this case as malignant.
","2010" "20100022","Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of ALK+ anaplastic T cell lymphoma following a 2008 diagnosis of follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 a new primary? If so, how is the histology coded? See Discussion.","A patient has a history of Stage 4 follicular B cell lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] diagnosed in 2008. The patient was treated with Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Rituxan, and Prednisone. In 2010, the medical oncologist states the patient has progression/recurrence of lymphoma with pathology that has changed to anaplastic T cell lymphoma ALK+. There was immunophenotyping, but there was no more specific diagnosis made. The patient died within 3 months.","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Abstract the anaplastic T cell lymphoma as a new primary. Code the histology to 9714/3 [Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive].
Rule M15 applies to this cases which instructs you to use the Multiple Primaries Calculator. The result for 9695/3 and 9714/3 is ""New Primary.""
Apply Rule PH30 to code histology which instructs you to use the Heme DB to determine the histology when rules PH1-PH29 do not apply. In searching the Heme DB for ""anaplastic"" the first term returned is Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ALK-positive [9714/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
","2010" "20100020","Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a ""cystic glioma""?","","Code the histology 9380/3 [Malignant glioma; Glioma, NOS]. There is no specific code for cystic glioma.","2010" "20100019","Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion.","At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, ""Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy.""","Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor.","2010" "20100018","Reportability/Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is light chain disease reportable if it is treated with chemotherapy agents? See Discussion.","A patient was diagnosed in 2010 with light chain disease based on SPEP and urine testing. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were done. Flow cytometry, cytogenetic studies and FISH for plasma cell disorders are all normal. Medical oncologist states diagnosis is light chain disease. Patient was started on Revlimid, dexamethasone and Velcade.
In reviewing the case reportability instructions, this seems to fall under Instruction 1, note 1. Immunoglobulin deposition disease, preferred term for light chain disease, is coded as 9769/1. This is normally a non-reportable diagnosis, but the patient was given cancer-directed treatment. Would this case be accessioned using the above morphology code and primary site of bone marrow [C42.1]?
","For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
This case is not reportable. The histology is 9769/1 [light chain disease] in the Heme DB.
Light chains are produced in neoplastic plasma cells (multiple myeloma) and are called Bence-Jones proteins. The physician did the cytogenetic studies and FISH to rule out plasma cell disease. 50-60% of people with Light-chain deposition disease (LCDD) have an associated lymphoproliferative disorder, most commonly multiple myeloma. The remaining patients develop LCDD in the setting of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) with no evidence of neoplastic plasma cell proliferation. This patient falls in this category, MGUS, which is not reportable.
","2010" "20100017","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Prostate: Does adenosquamous carcinoma found in the prostate represent a second primary in a patient previously diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed many years ago with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and treated with hormonal and radiation therapy. The patient recently underwent a TURP and is found to have adenosquamous carcinoma of the prostate. The pathology report comment states squamous carcinoma of the prostate is rare and is often associated with a history of hormonal or radiation therapy. There is no information indicating a history of a squamous carcinoma in the urinary system that could have involved the prostatic urethra.
Would the MP/H rules make this a second primary with the histology of 8560/3 [adenosquamous carcinoma]?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, based on the limited information available for this unusual case, abstract a second prostate primary and code the histology as adenosquamous carcinoma. Rule M3 does not apply in this case. Apply rule M10.","2010" "20100015","Type of Multiple Tumors/Multiplicity Counter--Breast. Are the data items ""Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary"" and ""Multiplicity Counter"" related? How should they be coded for breast cases in which there are multiple measured invasive tumors, plus DCIS which is not measured nor stated whether it is separate from the invasive tumors? See Discussion.
","For example, path report states only ""multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm and 0.8 cm, and low-grade DCIS."" The Multiplicity Counter instructions tell us to ignore/do not count foci that are not measured. Should we interpret this to mean, count only the two invasive foci and ignore the DCIS? Should Type of Multiple Tumors then be coded 30 or 40, because only the invasive tumors are coded in Multiplicity Counter?","Code Type of Multiple Tumors 30 [in situ and invasive]. The code in Type of Multiple Tumors may or may not reflect the tumors that were counted in Multiplicity Counter. For this case, it is correct to code 02 in multiplicity counter.","2010" "20100014","Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.","
Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is ""GIST."" The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?
1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.
2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.
3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.
4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.
5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.
6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.
7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.
8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).
9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states ""malignant risk"".
10) Pathology report states tumor ""into muscularis propria"" or tumor ""involves muscularis propria"" or ""infiltrates into muscularis propria"".
11) Pathology report states, ""high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor."" It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.
12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.
13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.
14) Pathology report states, ""high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential.""
15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.
16) Pathology report states ""high risk of malignancy.""
","For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states ""hepatic metastases."" Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize.","2010" "20100013","Reportability--Lymphoma: Should a December 2008 diagnosis of in situ follicular lymphoma be accessioned? See Discussion.
","Patient with mesenteric lymphadenopathy had a biopsy. Consult supports original pathology findings: The histologic and immunophenotypic findings represent what has been referred to in the literature as ""in situ follicular lymphoma."" The oncology assessment states, ""At this point the patient has no other obvious evidence of other disease. ...no hepatosplenomegaly...no peripheral adenopathy...no significant abnormalities on PET scan to suggest active lymphoma."" No treatment is planned at this time. The patient will only be monitored.
","Do not report in situ lymphoma at this time. Currently, lymphoma cannot be reported with a behavior code of in situ (/2) and it would be incorrect to abstract in situ lymphoma as a /3.
It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.
","2010" "20100012","Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only ""suspicious calcifications"" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion.","The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term ""suspicious for calcification"" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline?","The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram.","2010" "20100011","Reportability: Should a benign gangliocytic paraganglioma [8683/0] be a reportable (malignant) tumor based on the presence of lymph node metastases? See Discussion.
","""Resection, periampullary duodenum: Gangliocytic paraganglioma, with metastasis to one large periduodunal lymph node. Six other small lymph nodes negative. COMMENT: The primary tumor in the duodenum is made up mainly endocrine cell component. This component appears to have metastasized to a periduodenal lymph node.""
","This neoplasm is reportable because it is malignant as proven by the lymph node metastases. Code the behavior as malignant (/3) when there are lymph node metastases.
","2010" "20100010","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion.
","Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, ""Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca."" The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?
What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries.
Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules.
","2010" "20100009","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion.","A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.
Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record.","2010" "20100008","Primary site--Bladder/Unknown & ill-defined sites: Should the coding of primary site be based on a molecular study when it is not verified by a clinical correlation? See Discussion.","Patient was seen in 2009 at Hospital A for bone pain and was found to have metastatic adenocarcinoma. A paraffin block specimen was sent to BioThernostics for THEROS CancerTYPE ID Molecular Cancer Classification Tests. The results came back with a 94% likelihood that the urinary bladder was the primary site. No scans were done on the abdomen or pelvis.
The patient was then sent to Hospital B for radiation to the bones and chemotherapy (Carboplatin and Taxol). The patient died within 6 months.
According to Hospital A, the primary site is bladder based on the molecular study report. Hospital B says this is an unknown primary. Which is correct? Do we take primary site from these tests, even when no clinical correlation is documented?
","Code primary site to bladder in this case. Code the known primary site when given the choice between a known primary site and an unknown primary site.","2010" "20100007","MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Regarding SINQ #20081044, when would you apply Rule H6 rather than Rule H5 for a cutaneous malignant melanoma given that you normally always have a specific cell type mentioned?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule H6 is used when you do not have a specific cell type other than regressing melanoma, or malignant melanoma, regressing. If you have regressing melanoma with a specific cell type, apply rule H5.","2010" "20100006","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion.
","This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, ""recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell."" The path specimen was labeled as, ""soft tissue, rt renal fossa."" The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.
If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009.
","2010" "20100002","Reportability/Histology--Colon: Is a colon tumor reportable if the pathology report final diagnosis is high grade dysplasia but CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.","The microscopic description and the final diagnosis on the pathology report indicate the tumor is a large tubulovillous adenoma of the cecum with focal surface high grade dysplasia. The CAP protocol histologic type designation is adenocarcinoma in situ and pT designation is pTis. Which has priority? Is the case reportable?","The case is reportable because carcinoma in situ is stated. Carcinoma in situ has higher priority than severe dysplasia or high grade dysplasia.
Per AJCC 6th edition colon chapter, the terms ""high grade dysplasia"" or ""severe dysplasia"" may be synonymous with carcinoma in situ. Because the pathologist gave carcinoma in situ information within the CAP, (s)he is apparently defining the dysplasia as in situ carcinoma.
","2010" "20091131","Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and ""focally seen"" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.","Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists ""DCIS: focally seen"", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.
Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?
","
Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the ""focally seen"" DCIS because it was not measured.
Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.
","2009" "20091130","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code and MP/H rule used for 1) infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and 2) infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma? See Discussion.
","There is confusion as to which rule applies. Should the histologies be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] and 8211/3 [tubular adenocarcinoma] respectively per rule H12? Rule H12 states to code the most specific histologic term; ""type"" and ""with features of"" are used in the pathologic diagnosis and are both terms that can be used to code the specific histology. Or would the histology be coded 8523 for both examples per rule H17 because neither histologic codes 8480/3 or 8211/3 are included as examples of duct carcinomas, nor are they included in Table 2?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8523 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] for
1. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and
2. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma
The infiltrating ductal types in Rule H12 are listed (8022, 8035, 8501-8508) and do not include mucinous or tubular. We cannot use this rule. The first rule that applies to these single tumors is H17, code to 8523. If you look up 8523 in the numerical morphology section of ICD-O-3, you will see similar examples included in the definition of this code.
","2009" "20091129","Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant?","","Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9.","2009" "20091128","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.
","Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.
""Chest wall"" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the ""recurrence"" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.
","2009" "20091127","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion.
","We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries.
Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient.
Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine.
Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain).
","2009" "20091126","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion.","Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement.","There are two primaries according to the information provided.
1. VAIN III March 2001.
2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.
","2009" "20091125","
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.
","
Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term ""suspicious"" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.
","Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase ""Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology"" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase ""suspicious cytology"" includes all of the ambiguous terms.","2009" "20091124","CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.","The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.","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.
Use code ""6"" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.
","2009" "20091123","Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.
","The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.
SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.
Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is ""Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis"" to be coded?
Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.
Reference: SINQ 20061123
","A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.
","2009" "20091122","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries-Brain: Does a glioblastoma multiforme following a low grade glioma (oligodendroglioma) represent a new primary? See Discussion.","In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, glioblastoma multiforme following oligodendroglioma are multiple primaries according to rule M8. Rule M6 does not apply. M6 applies only to glial tumors as listed in chart 1. Chart 1 is based on the WHO classification. The WHO classification separates oligodendroglial tumors from glial tumors.","2009" "20091121","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain: Does a patient diagnosed with anaplastic astrocytoma of the left temporal lobe in 2000 followed by a diagnosis of oligoastrocytoma of the right frontal lobe in 2007 have a single primary per rule M7 or multiple primaries per rule M8? See Discussion.","MP/H rule M7 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 histologies on the same branch in chart 1 are a single primary. Chart 1 shows that both of the histologies for our sample case are located on the glial branch. However, the glial tumor branch has three secondary branches. Does rule M7 apply to secondary branches? Anaplastic astrocytoma [9402] is classified under the secondary branch for astrocytic tumors. Oligoastrocytoma [9382] is classified under the secondary branch for mixed glioma. Does rule M7 or does rule M8 apply for this case? Does this case represent one or two primaries?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. There are two primaries.
Anaplastic astrocytoma and oligoastrocytoma (mixed glioma) are on separate branches in Chart 1. They are both gliomas, but one is a mixed glioma and the other is an astrocytic tumor.
","2009" "20091120","MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: Should the modifying expression ""with areas of"" be used to code histology? See Discussion.
","Patient was found to have two tumors in the esophagus. The large tumor was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with areas of neuroendocrine differentiation (small cell carcinoma). The smaller tumor was diagnosed as small cell carcinoma. If we accept the ""areas of"" to be part of the diagnosis, rule H16 indicates that histology for the large tumor would be coded 8045 (combined small cell and adenocarcinoma). If we ignore the ""areas of,"" then histology for the large tumor would be coded to 8140 (adenocarcinoma). Either way, when counting primaries, rule M17 would be applied and the two tumors would be classified as separate primaries. However, it seems that the two tumors are probably the same disease process since they both show small cell carcinoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not use the modifying expression ""with areas of"" to determine a more specific histology per rule H13 in the MP/H rules.
","2009" "20091119","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are to be reported for an adenocarcinoma of the lung in the right middle lobe of the lung and bronchioalveolar carcinoma, non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe? See Discussion.
","Bilobectomy revealed two tumors, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and bronchioalveoar carcinoma non-mucinous type in the right upper lobe. MP/H rule M10 states that tumors with non-small cell carcinoma (8046) and a more specific non-small cell type (chart 1) are a single primary. Does rule M10 apply to only those cases for which one tumor is stated to be non-small cell, NOS? Or do we use chart 1 to identify specific subtypes? For this case, using chart 1, would we note that bronchioalveolar is a subtype of adenocarcinoma and count this case as a single primary? Most of the MP/H rules schemas have a rule making an adenocarcinoma and a more specific type of adenocarcinoma a single primary. Would we apply rule M10 to this case and count it as a single primary? Or would we move on to rule M11 and count the case as two primaries?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M11 applies. Accession two primaries.
Rule M10 applies only to cases for which one tumor is stated to be ""non-small cell carcinoma.""
","2009" "20091118","Surgery of Primary Site--Corpus uteri: How are the surgery fields to be coded when patient undergoes hysterectomy and omentectomy for endometrial primary? See Discussion.","The example for instruction 6 in the 2007 SEER manual on page 179 (for surgery of primary site) states ""code an en bloc removal when the patient has a hysterectomy and an omentectomy."" There is no Site-Specific Surgery code for corpus uteri that combines hysterectomy with omentectomy. Is the information about removal of the omentum lost or is it documented under Surgical Procedure of Other Site?
","Use the most appropriate code in the ""Surgery of Primary Site field."" Do not code the omentectomy in ""Surgical Procedure of Other Site"" when it is performed with a hysterectomy for an endometrial primary.","2009" "20091117","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as ""tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)""? See Discussion.","How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma.","2009" "20091116","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Colon: Is a colon tumor reported as ""recurrent at the anastomotic junction"" just over one year after the diagnosis of a T4 colon tumor to be counted as a new primary? See Discussion.","MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. However, it has been our experience that pathologists and clinicians tend to use the terms metastatic and recurrence interchangeably. The term ""recurrence"" is not limited to a tumor recurrence in the same site as a previous malignancy. Sometimes it is obvious that the clinician is using the term recurrence to describe a metastatic lesion. When a ""recurrence"" is located in tissue that is very different from the original primary site, it is easy to recognize that the intended meaning of the term is metastasis.
Example: Patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue with recurrence in the lung.
However, when the metastatic deposit occurs in similar tissue, it is more difficult to determine the number of primaries.
Example when the term ""recurrence"" is ambiguous: In April 2008 patient was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon. At the time of hemicolectomy the tumor was noted to be plastered into the paraduodenal and peripancreatic area. Patient received one dose of adjuvant chemo and then discontinued treatment. In May 2009 the patient was found to have adenocarcinoma in the transverse colon. Per the pathology report the diagnosis for segmental resection at that time showed colonic adenocarcinoma. Tumor location: tumor appears recurrent at anastomotic junction. Abdominal wall mass showed metastatic adenocarcinoma.
One has to wonder if the pathologist found a metastatic nodule at the anastomotic site and called it ""recurrent."" It is unlikely that the pathologist will compare this specimen to the previous tumor, having already diagnosed it as ""recurrent.""
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M4 applies to the example of adenocarcinoma of ascending colon diagnosed in 2008 followed by adenocarcinoma of transverse colon diagnosed in 2009. When a colon resection has taken place, the original primary site is no longer present. A colon resection usually includes a portion of uninvolved colon on either side of the tumor. A tumor diagnosed at the anastomotic junction cannot be located in the same site as the previous tumor. Use of the term ""recurrent"" in this case is not synonymous with ""metastatic."" Apply the MP/H rules.","2009" "20091115","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries - - Melanoma: How many primaries are reported when a patient presents with a malignant melanoma (NOS) and a separate lentigo maligna, both on right chest? See Discussion.","
MP/H rule M5 states that melanomas with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third number are multiple primaries. However, the 2007 MP/H fundamentals Webcast session on melanoma rules states that this is not two histologic types. Lentigo maligna is a growth pattern, not a histologic type. Will clarification be included in the next MP/H rules revision?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, two primaries are to be reported for this case. Rule M5 applies because there is a difference in the histology codes at the third digit.
Clarifications regarding histologic types of melanoma will be added to the rules when they are revised.
","2009" "20091114","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: Would a left chest wall mass excision stated to be ductal carcinoma consistent with a breast primary and, ""compatible with either local recurrence or potentially a metastasis"" be a new primary per the MP/H rules? See Discussion.","Patient underwent mastectomy in 1986 for infiltrating ductal carcinoma of left breast. Excision of left chest wall mass in March 2009 showed ductal carcinoma consistent with breast primary. The pathology report COMMENT stated it would be compatible with either local recurrence or a metastasis. The patient's primary breast carcinoma material is not available for direct comparison and the MP/H rules instruct us to ignore metastasis.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastasis. If there is no further information available for this case, the MP/H rules do not apply to the 2009 diagnosis.","2009" "20091113","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded when a nipple biopsy shows Paget disease but the mastectomy specimen shows only infiltrating ductal carcinoma in the breast tissue and the nipple is negative for Paget disease? See Discussion.","Biopsy of nipple showed Paget disease. Subsequent mastectomy showed two tumors proven to be infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Nipple is negative. Per MP/H rule M9, this is all counted as a single primary. Do we code histology from the most representative specimen and lose the information about the Paget disease?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8541/3 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Paget disease of the nipple and infiltrating duct are separate tumors. For each tumor, take the histology from the most representative specimen. The biopsy is the most representative specimen for the Paget disease. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen for the infiltrating duct. According to the multiple primary rules, tumors that are Paget disease and duct are a single primary (M9). According to the histology rules, assign code 8541/3 (H26).","2009" "20091112","Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as ""intermediate nuclear grade""? See Discussion.","Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?
Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.
Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.
Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.
Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.
","Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms ""low,"" ""intermediate,"" and ""high"" appear in the column labeled ""BR Grade."" Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field.","2009" "20091111","Grade--Breast: How is this field coded for an ""invasive ductal carcinoma, well differentiated, low nuclear grade""?","","Assign code 1 [Grade 1, well differentiated]. Use the table in the 2007 SEER Manual on page C-607. Both ""low grade"" and ""well differentiated"" are coded 1 in the grade field.","2009" "20091110","MP/H Rules--Bladder: Should an invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder diagnosed in 2004 followed by an in situ urothelial carcinoma of the ureter diagnosed in 2008 be reported as multiple primaries per the three-year guideline in Rule M7 or a single primary per the subsite guideline in Rule M8? See Discussion.","Rule M7 states, ""Tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries."" Should this rule be modified to say, ""Bladder tumors diagnosed more than three (3) years apart are multiple primaries""? Does Rule M7 apply to only bladder tumors or does this rule apply to tumors in any of the urinary sites similarly to Rule M8 which states, ""Urothelial tumors in two or more of the following sites are a single primary: Renal pelvis (C659) Ureter (C669) Bladder (C670-C679) Urethra/prostatic urethra (C680)""?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M7 pertains to renal pelvis, ureter, bladder and other urinary sites as defined by the topography codes listed in the header of these rules.
An invasive urothelial bladder tumor followed more than three years later by an in situ TCC of the ureter are reported separate primaries. Rule M8 applies when the tumors in these sites are diagnosed within three years of each other.
","2009" "20091109","Surgery of Primary Site - - Esophagus/Stomach/Colon: Is an endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for an esophagus, stomach or colon malignancy coded to 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] or to a more specific code such as 22 [local tumor excision combined with electrocautery]?","","Assign code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] for a procedure described as an esophagus stomach or colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), NOS. If there is additional information specifying electrocautery, laser or PDT (for example), assign a more specific code.","2009" "20091108","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How do we apply the MP/H rules if a pathologist states a patient has multiple reportable primaries after he compares an October 2006 RLL lung specimen with a March 2009 RML lung specimen? See Discussion.","Patient had a right lung lobectomy (RLL) in Oct. 2006 diagnosed as adenocarcinoma. In March of 2009, two nodules in the right upper lobe were identified. Following a RUL wedge resection, the pathology report indicated: Two foci of M.D. adenocarcinoma with mixed mucinous and micropapillary and solid patterns. COMMENT: The present tumor is compared to the previous adenocarcinoma reviewed in 2006. Although there is some overlap in their appearance, the present tumor shows a much greater component of mucinous adenocarcinoma. Because there is some difference in the appearance, and the nodule is located in a separate lobe, this will be dictated as a separate lung primary.","
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries.
MPH General Instructions tell us a pathologist may decide when there is recurrence when comparing the current tumor to a previous specimen. In this case, the pathologist did the comparison and documented that the second tumor is NOT a recurrence but a new primary.
Histologies described by the terms ""pattern"" and ""component"" do not indicate a more specific type when applying the histology rules. The histology for the 2009 diagnosis is adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Rule H3 applies.
","2009" "20091107","CS Extension--Lymphoma: Does peripheral blood involvement affect the stage for lymphoma? See Discussion.
","2009 Diagnostic Year
Lymph node bx is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on lymph node tissue shows CD+ pos B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. IHC findings support Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on peripheral blood shows CD+ B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Because the lymph node is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma and the flow cytometry findings are the same on the lymph node tissue and peripheral blood, is the peripheral blood involved (Stage IV disease)?
","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.No. Peripheral blood is not the same as bone marrow involvement which is what would be required for stage IV.
Lymphomas can arise in lymph nodes which are connected by lymphatic vessels. Both lymphatic vessels and blood vessels travel through lymph nodes and malignant cells can travel between the vessels. Cells in peripheral blood do not prove Stage IV.
","2009" "20091106","Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter?","","One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply).","2009" "20091105","Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion.
","2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries.
MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)
RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)
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.
","2009" "20091104","MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of ""adenocarcinoma, intestinal type"" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion.","There is a rule for colon to disregard ""intestinal type"" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.
","2009" "20091103","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Is a prostate biopsy that states ""highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy"" reportable?","","Do not report. ""Not diagnostic of"" means that while the pathologist is seeing some features that resemble cancer, there are not enough features to feel comfortable making an unquestionable diagnosis. Watch for another biopsy of the patient in the next 3-6 months. The statement ""not diagnostic of"" overrules the ""highly suspicious"" statement.","2009" "20091102","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of ""papillary sclerosing carcinoma"" with an additional description of the tumor being ""nonencapsulated""? See Discussion.","Pathology report reads, ""Papillary sclerosing carcinoma."" In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated.","2009" "20091101","CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Melanoma: How should these fields be coded for a case that is an unknown primary site melanoma with liver involvement and a positive axillary lymph node?","","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 nodes positive 01 [one positive lymph node] and regional lymph nodes examined 01 [one lymph node examined] (assuming the positive node was the only node examined).
If the only lymph node involvement is the positive axillary lymph node, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a regional lymph node. When only one chain of lymph nodes is involved with metastatic melanoma, the metastatic cells had to come from skin with direct drainage to those lymph nodes.
","2009" "20091100","MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a ""melanoma in situ, lentiginous type,"" arising in the skin of the lower leg? See Discussion.
","In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word ""acral"" lentiginous melanoma?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2020
Assign 8742/2 [lentigo maligna] to ""melanoma in situ, lentiginous type.""
Acral lentiginous melanoma is not the same as melanoma, lentiginous type. ""Acral lentiginous melanoma,"" 8744, should be used only if the report states acral lentiginous melanoma or malignant melanoma, acral lentiginous type.
Acral lentiginous melanoma most often occurs on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hands.
","2009" "20091098","MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a partial vulvectomy showing ""vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III, basaloid type""? See Discussion.","Is this VIN III (8077/2) or basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (8083 and change the behavior code from 3 to 2)? It seems that H4 and H6 both lead to 8083.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign 8077/2 [Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] for VIN III diagnoses, regardless of the type. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours (page 319), ""VIN is predominately of the warty or basaloid types....""
Use the multiple tumors module to determine the histology code for VIN. Rule H21 applies.
","2009" "20091097","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted if DLBCL (9680/3) and Mantle Cell Lymphoma (9673/3) occur at the same time in different lymph nodes? How would Sequence be coded if the case is multiple primaries?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:It is important to note for this case that the two different types of NHL occurred in different lymph nodes; one type in one lymph node and the other type in another lymph node.
Use the fold-out table to determine single vs multiple primaries. According to the table, 9673/3 and 9680/3 would be two primaries no matter which of these was ""first.""
Assign the lower sequence number to the primary with the worse prognosis when two primaries are diagnosed simultaneously. Base the prognosis decision on the primary site, histology, and extent of disease for each of the primaries. If there is no difference in prognosis, the sequence numbers may be assigned in any order.
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.
","2009" "20091096","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion.","Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated ""Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis."" The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease.","2009" "20091095","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion.","The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states ""when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040."" The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?","Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.
Note 4 pertains to code 040, not to code 048.
","2009" "20091094","Reportability--Anal canal: Are squamous cell carcinomas arising in a condyloma of the rectum reportable or should we assume that the site is skin of anus or perianal area and not reportable?","","Squamous cell carcinoma arising in a rectal condyloma is reportable. Do not assume the site is skin of anus or perianal.","2009" "20091093","Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion.
","For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians?
1) Patient is Czechoslovakian
2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia
3) Patient is Ethiopian
4) Patient is born in Ethiopia
5) Patient is Japanese
6) Patient is born in Japan
7) Patient is Brazilian
8) Patient is born in Brazil
Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate?
","Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance.
Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields.
","2009" "20091092","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How should Diagnosis Date, Diagnostic Confirmation and Histology be coded for the LEFT lung mass in the following case?
PET shows a 3 cm mass in the left lung and a 2.9 cm mass in the right lung. No reportable terminology in PET. The right mass is biopsied and shows adenocarcinoma. The left mass is not biopsied. Based on rule M6, this should be reported as two primaries. No additional information in medical record. Patient expired.
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For date of diagnosis, use the date of the PET scan for both primaries. For the left tumor, assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] and assign histology code 8000/3 [malignant neoplasm].
The left lung mass is reported as a separate primary because there is one tumor in each lung. According to Rule M6, when there is one tumor in the left lung and one tumor in the right lung, each tumor is a separate primary. Tumor and mass are equivalent terms for purposes of the multiple primary rules.
","2009" "20091091","Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How should these fields be coded for a malignant lymphoma with spleen involvement, inguinal and iliac adenopathy, T12 lesion with bony destruction, and a paraspinal mass in lower lumbar region with extension into iliac fossa involving left psoas muscle and causing bony destruction?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 the primary site C496 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of trunk]. When lymphoma is present in an extranodal organ/site and in that organ/site's regional lymph nodes, code the extranodal organ/site as the primary site. In this case, there is a soft tissue paraspinal mass at T12 extending into iliac fossa, left psoas muscle and bone. Lymph nodes are also involved. Assign CS extension code 21 [Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues].
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.
","2009" "20091090","First course treatment--Leukemia: How should an allogeneic stem cell transplant for acute myeloid leukemia be coded in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures field? See Discussion.","There is debate as to whether this procedure should be coded as a 12 in order to capture the allogeneic part of the procedure.","Assign code 20 [Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion as first course therapy] for stem cell procedures, even allogeneic procedures.","2009" "20091089","Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a ""chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation""?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia.
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.
","2009" "20091088","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of ""metaplastic carcinoma with the sarcomatous component of high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation""? See Discussion.","Right breast simple mastectomy, path: 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm metaplastic carcinoma with; the sarcomatous component is high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation. The epithelial component is predominantly grade 2 DCIS.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8575 [Metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. Metaplastic carcinomas often include mixtures of epithelial carcinoma with sarcoma, for example.","2009" "20091087","Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion.","Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix.","Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term ""metastatic"" does not automatically make them reportable. When the ""metastatic deposits"" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the ""metastases"" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets.","2009" "20091085","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a breast primary with a final diagnosis of ""infiltrating duct carcinoma with apocrine features""? See Discussion.","I & R has conflicting answers: #25719 (dated 3/17/2008) says per rule H12 this is 8401/3 but #23347 (dated 8/12/07) says per rule H16, this is 8523/3.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8401/3 [apocrine adenocarcinoma] according to rule H12. Apocrine is a type of duct carcinoma, see table 1. Code 8401 should be listed in Rule H12. Apocrine should be removed from table 3.
These corrections will appear in the revised version of the rules.
","2009" "20091084","Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion.","The path report for a hemicolectomy says, "" Specimen: left colon..."" and the microscopic says, ""...received in formalin designated left colon..."" The Operative procedure report says, ""Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor."" The text of this report says, ""Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..."" and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.","Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.
The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.
The 2007 SEER manual states ""Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site,"" page 69.
","2009" "20091083","Grade/Cell indicator--Lymphoma: How is Grade/Cell indicator coded for anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion.","The SPCM states cell indicator codes take precedence over grade/differentiation codes for lymphoma and leukemia cases.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Because there is no cell indicator information, code 9 [cell type not determined] in the grade/cell indicator field. Do not code grade for lymphoma. For lymphoma and leukemia this field is the cell indicator.
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.
","2009" "20091082","Behavior--Breast: How is this field coded for a case in which the final diagnosis reports DCIS, but the CAP protocol or microscopic findings show microinvasion? See Discussion.","1. Path report for breast cancer has final diagnosis as 'DCIS' but the CAP protocol in the body of the report says 'microinvasion seen, T1mic.'
2. Path report says 'DCIS' in the final diagnosis and microinvasion is identified in the microscopic portion of the report, but it is not in CAP protocol format and not stated in the final diagnosis.
","Code both scenarios /3 [malignant (invasive)]. Information regarding behavior is not limited to the final diagnosis or the CAP protocol. See page 84 in the 2007 SEER manual:
Code the behavior as malignant /3 if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited; i.e. microinvasion.
","2009" "20091081","Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an ""inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor"" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion.","Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors.","If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.
Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:
For this case, assign code C670 [Trigone of bladder]. The description for this case states that the tumor location is the base of the bladder. Base is a synonym for trigone.
The interureteric ridge (or interureteric crest, or interureteric fold) is a fold of mucous membrane extending accross the bladder between the two ureteric orifices. The trigone is located below the interureteric ridge.
","2009" "20091078","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion.","According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary.","For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:
Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.].
The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character.
","2009" "20091077","CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: Can SSF 1-6 be coded using clinical information only, or does the source of information for lymph nodes need to be pathological?","","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.CS Site Specific Factors 1 through 6 for head and neck sites may be coded using either clinical or pathologic information.
","2009" "20091076","Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done?","","Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes.","2009" "20091073","Grade: Can FIGO grade be used to code Grade/Differentiation? See Discussion.","SINQ 20020059 says not to use FIGO grade to code differentiation. It also says SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 sixth digit differentiation codes accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade. What is the result of the evaluation? Any new information regarding FIGO grade?","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.Do not code FIGO grade in the grade field. The conversion from a three-grade system to a four-grade system does not work for FIGO grade three. Since FIGO G3 includes both Poorly differentiated and undifferentiated, it cannot be converted.
FIGO grade may be captured in a CS site specific factor in the future.
","2009" "20091072","Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a ""rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor"" of the fourth ventricle?","","Assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].
Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.
","2009" "20091069","CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded for a high grade urothelial carcinoma with ""focal micropapillary features and invasion of lamina propria, with a note stating there is invasive carcinoma focally involving thin muscle bundles...difficult to distinguish whether muscularis propria or muscularis mucosae""?","","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 CS Extension code 15 [Invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue (tunica propria, lamina propria, submucosa, stroma)]. The information provided confirms invasion of the lamina propria (code 15) but is not definitive enough to assign a code higher than 15.
","2009" "20091068","Primary site--Bladder: What is the appropriate subsite for ""adjacent to the bladder neck""?","","Assign code C679 [Bladder, NOS]. It is not possible to determine the location of the tumor from the description. A tumor that is ""adjacent to bladder neck"" could be located in the trigone or on the bladder wall (anterior, posterior or lateral).","2009" "20091066","Multiplicity Counter--Lung: How is this field coded when there is no evidence of the primary tumor? See Discussion.","Patient presented with large mediastinal mass. CT showed no intraparenchymal lung tumor. Biopsy of mediastinal mass revealed adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary.","Code Multiplicity Counter to code 99 [Unknown].","2009" "20091065","Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a non-Hodgkins lymphoma case with scans that show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules and a large mediastinal mass? See Discussion.
","Patient presented with large bulky mediastinal mass. CT showed no pleural effusion. Findings also show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules. Biopsy of mediastinal mass showed malignant B-cell lymphoma of follicle center cell origin. Abdomen /Pelvis CT showed borderline lymph nodes in bifurcation. Clinical diagnosis was probable stage 3 if not 4 lymphoma. Per lymphoma guidelines, if extra-nodal primary site is assigned to the extranodal site if an extra-nodal site and its regional lymph nodes are involved. Would the parenchymal lung nodules be indicative of pulmonary involvement? If so, would primary site be lung? Or, would the parenchymal nodules be stage 4 disease and primary site be assigned to lymph nodes?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 Primary Site to C779 [Lymph node, NOS]. In this case, there is no statement that lymphoma involves the lung. ""Nonspecific parenchymal lung nodules"" are not indicative of lymphoma involvement. Consequently, this cannot be assumed to be an extra-nodal lymphoma. Additionally, it is not clear whether or not the ""borderline"" pelvic lymph nodes are involved. If the physician cannot provide more information, follow instruction 4.e in the SEER manual on page 72.
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.
","2009" "20091064","Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tonsil primary diagnosed on 4/16/07 by a regional lymph node FNA when the patient subsequently initiates radiation on 5/8/07 and has a tonsillectomy with neck dissection on 7/30/07?","","The best way to handle this situation is to assign code 2 [Radiation before surgery] in Radiation Sequence with Surgery. Code 2 provides the best description of the sequence of events in this case. Radiation was delivered prior to the resection of the primary site.","2009" "20091063","CS Lymph Nodes--Head and Neck: How is this field coded when a positive neck FNA is followed by a neck dissection that contains one of seventeen positive lymph nodes? See Discussion.","The primary site is the right tongue. The patient underwent FNA of a right neck mass that was positive for squamous cell carcinoma. Subsequent right modified radical neck dissection showed one out of seventeen nodes positive for metastatic carcinoma. For head and neck primaries, the CS LN codes 10-19 represent a single positive ipsilateral regional node. Codes 20-29 represent multiple positive ipsilateral nodes.","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.If the neck dissection included the area of the positive FNA, count only the positive nodes from the dissection. Avoid double-counting a positive node for both an FNA and a dissection.
In the unlikely event that the dissection did not include the area of the positive FNA, add one positive node to the count from the dissection.
This instruction supersedes previous instructions.
","2009" "20091062","CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as ""matted""? See Discussion.","The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term ""fixed"" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?","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.""Matted"" is not a synonym for ""Fixed"" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. ""Matted"" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.
","2009" "20091061","Multiplicity Counter--Head & Neck: How is this field coded when a patient has carcinoma in the same location as a previous primary but it is unknown if there was a disease-free interval? See Discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma, single tumor of the right true vocal cord in May 2008. Tumor was treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Excision of right vocal cord mass in February 2009 shows squamous cell carcinoma.","Assign code 01 [one tumor only] for the example provided (see discussion). Given the information provided, there is no reason to suspect that the February 2009 diagnosis represents new tumor; therefore, it does not affect the multiplicity counter. It appears that this was the treatment plan for the original diagnosis in May 2008: radiation and chemo followed by excision of the mass.","2009" "20091060","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a case in which a second tumor occurs in an area previously involved by direct extension from a prior primary located in an adjacent site? See Discussion.","Patient diagnosed in August 2007 with squamous cell carcinoma in the right tonsil. This tumor extended to the base of tongue. Treatment consisted of radiation and chemotherapy. In May 2008, the patient was found to have squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this case? Rule M7 states that tumors in sites with ICD-O topography codes that are different at the second or third character are multiple primaries. The topography code for base of tongue differs from that of tonsil. Would rule M7 apply? On the other hand, the base of tongue was involved by the tonsil primary which was diagnosed less than one year before.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The May 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. Base of tongue involvement was originally present in August 2007. The May 2008 diagnosis does not represent new tumor. The 2007 rules apply to new tumors only; therefore, the 2007 rules do not apply to this case.
","2009" "20091059","CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion.","Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?","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 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).
","2009" "20091058","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How is histology coded when it is described in the pathology report as ""Histologic type: Clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma. Percent of sarcomatoid component: 10%""? See Discussion.","MP/H rules for kidney, Table 1 lists both clear cell and sarcomatoid as specific types of renal cell carcinoma. The MP/H terms and definitions for kidney state that clear cell is architecturally diverse. For this case, does the sarcomatoid component represent a subtype of clear cell that has not been assigned an ICD-O code, and thus histology should be coded to 8310? Or does the sarcomatoid component represent a specific type of renal cell carcinoma for which rule H6 would apply? Should histology be coded 8255 for this case?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8310 [clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H5. Renal cell, clear cell and sarcomatoid are mentioned in the diagnosis. Sarcomatoid is referred to as a component. Component is not one of the terms listed in rule H5 that indicate a more specific type. Ignore sarcomatoid in this case. Use table 1 to identify clear cell as a specific renal cell type. Code the specific type (clear cell) according to rule H5.","2009" "20091057","CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the term ""intermediate risk"" be used to code IPI score? See Discussion.","Patient has Hodgkin disease. The physician states that the patient has bulky stage IIA intermediate risk disease. Is the term ""risk"" another way of stating IPI score? If so, how would intermediate risk be coded?","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 SSF 3 for lymphoma based on the IPI score stated in the record. Do not attempt to interpret statements or terms in order to assign a code to SSF 3. If no further information is available for this case, code SSF 3 999 [Unknown].
","2009" "20091056","MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian tumor diagnosed as an ""ovarian clear cell cystadenocarcinoma""? See Discussion.","Final diagnosis for a resected ovary is ovarian clear cell cystadenocarcinoma. In applying the MP/H rules, rule H16 does not apply because cystadenocarcinoma is not included in Table 2. As a result rule H17 applies. Thus it appears the histology should be coded 8440. Cystadenocarcinoma is a specific histologic type and it is assigned the numerically higher histology code. This result differs from pre-2007 SINQ entry 20041045 that states: Code histology to 8310/3 [Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS]. This is consistent with the WHO Classification of Tumours and reflects the current practice of placing less emphasis on ""cyst-"" prefix for ovarian malignancies.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assign code 8310 [Clear cell adenocarcinoma] according to rule H13. Ignore ""cyst"" when determining the histologic type for ovarian malignancies. For this case, the only histology is clear cell.
The histologies for the common ovarian epithelial malignancies are serous, mucinous, endometrioid, clear cell, and transitional cell/Brenner. This clarification will be added to the rules in the next revision.
","2009" "20091055","Date therapy initiated/Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient has chemotherapy after a sentinel lymph node biopsy and has a lumpectomy after completing chemotherapy? See Discussion.","On 4-10-08 a patient underwent sentinel lymph node biopsies. This was followed by chemotherapy which started on 4-15-08. The patient subsequently underwent a lumpectomy on 11-10-2008.","For this case, code Date Therapy Initiated to the date of the sentinel lymph node biopsy [04102008]. Assign code 3 [Systemic therapy after surgery] in Systemic/Surgery Sequence.
","2009" "20091054","First course treatment--Liver: Is planned therapy second course therapy if it is administered after documented progression of disease? See Discussion.
","A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed.
","In this case, neither the chemoembolization nor the liver transplant is part of the first course of therapy. The documented treatment plan was changed after disease progression. Chemoembolization was not part of the original treatment plan. First course therapy ends at this point.
","2009" "20091053","Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when a lobular carcinoma with positive margins is followed 8 years later by a lobular carcinoma near the previous lumpectomy site? See Discussion.
","Left breast invasive lobular ca diagnosed 3/00 and treated with a lumpectomy, but with multiple positive margins; she received no post operative radiation or other medical treatment (unknown why). 10/08 core biopsy of ""an area of distortion"" near the scar site is positive for invasive lobular ca. The radiologist states ""compatible with recurrence at her previous lumpectomy site"" on an x-ray report.
One thought is that this should not be a new primary because the patient was never disease free (multiple positive margins) and the patient received incomplete treatment. Or should this be a new primary because the tumors are diagnosed more that 5 years apart?
","Abstract the 10/08 diagnosis as a new primary, per Breast rule M5. In spite of the positive margins and apparently incomplete treatment in 3/00, there is no mention of the presence of disease between 3/00 and 10/08 according to the information provided.
","2009" "20091052","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a left tonsil biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and a cervical lymph node biopsy is diagnosed with marginal zone lymphoma and grade 3 follicular lymphoma (9699 and 9698)?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Abstract two primaries: The first is a marginal zone lymphoma of tonsil and the second is a follicular lymphoma of cervical lymph node. According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases (the tri-fold chart), marginal zone lymphoma (9699) and follicular lymphoma (9698) are different primaries.
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.
","2009" "20091051","MP/H Rules/HistologyCorpus Uteri: How should histology be coded for a ""carcinosarcoma with high grade sarcomatous component within a polyp, with greater component of endometrioid carcinoma and foci papillary serous carcinoma within polyp""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] according to rule H17. Rule H12 does not apply since the final diagnosis is not ""adenocarcinoma.""","2009" "20091050","Date of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How is this field coded when a second breast tumor is found at mastectomy two months after the original breast cancer was diagnosed, but during initial workup and treatment? See Discussion.","Breast cancer was diagnosed on core biopsy on 02-27-07. It was not known that the breast was harboring 2 tumors until mastectomy was done on 4-01-07. Both tumors are counted as one primary.","Code ""Date of Multiple Tumors"" field to the date of the mastectomy. That is the date that multiple tumors were discovered.","2009" "20091049","P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is ""similar"" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.","The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.
Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?
Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.
Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).
","All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as ""similar"" or ""resembles."" If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion.","2009" "20091048","Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma/Soft Tissue: How is this field coded for an excision of a neck mass that found lymphoma in soft tissue (C49.0)? See Discussion.","CT scan showed soft tissue mass in the retropharynx. 9/23/2008 Laryngoscopy with biopsy taken of left tonsil and left base of tongue and random biopsies of nasopharynx; FNA of left neck. Path stated left tonsil, squamous papilloma. Left base of tongue, no significant histopathology. Nasopharynx biopsies, compatible with tonsillar tissue. Pretracheal lymph node biopsies, mild reactive lymphoid hyperplasia. 9/30/2008 Excision of left neck mass with limited deep jugular chain lymph node dissection. Path stated lymph node left jugular biopsy, no tumor seen. Soft tissue, left neck biopsy, malignant B cell lymphoma with plasmacytoid differentiation. Addendum from consult: favor a diagnosis of a marginal zone lymphoma. Per the gross description, the specimen was fibrofatty connective tissue in which there is a tumor infiltrate.","Assign code 26 [partial resection]. Use the surgery codes that apply to the primary site. See page C-597 of the 2007 SEER manual for surgery of primary site codes applicable to primary sites of soft tissue coded to C490 - C499.","2009" "20091047","MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for ""serous carcinoma, papillary invasive pattern""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8441/3 [Serous carcinoma, NOS]. Use the Other Sites rules. Start with rule H8 and stop at rule H11. ""Pattern"" is not one of the terms used to identify a specific type (See H16), so papillary is ignored.","2009" "20091046","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Melanoma: When CS Lymph Nodes is coded 13, 14 or 15 (codes used when satellite nodule(s) or in-transit metastases are present), why must CS SSF 3 be coded 000 (No lymph node metastasis)? See Discussion.","3/11/05 Consult - PE: huge exophytic lesion right lower leg (mushroom-type lesion), 6cm. Below that lesion is another ulcerative lesion 2cm. Right upper arm lesion w/ satellite nodule. Note from physician states malignant melanoma on right lower leg metastatic to the left arm/shoulder. No scans done so there is no assessment of the lymph nodes.
We coded CS LNS to 13, which captures the satellite nodule, CS SSF3 = 999 and CS Reg Nodes Eval = 0. SEER Edit 216 requires the SSF3 to be 000. SSF 3 is coded 999 as there is no information about the clinical status of lymph nodes.
","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.When CS lymph nodes is coded 13-15, SSF 3 must be coded 000. Follow the instruction in the SSF 3 Note: Use code 000, No lymph node metastases, if ... there are satellite nodules or in-transit metastases, but no regional lymph node metastases, i.e., CS Lymph Nodes is coded 13-15.
For this case, assign CS lymph node code 15 [Satellite nodule(s) or in-transit metastases greater than 2cm from primary tumor WITHOUT regional lymph node involvement or involvement of regional nodes not stated]. The arm lesion is more than 2cm from the leg lesion.
","2009" "20091045","CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion.","We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?","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 CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].
This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.
","2009" "20091044","Radiation Therapy: Would tomotherapy, described as targeted IMRT, be coded as external beam?","","Code tomotherapy as 1 [Beam radiation].
Tomotherapy is external beam radiation therapy. It is a type of IMRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced mode of high-precision radiotherapy that utilizes computer-controlled x-ray accelerators to deliver radiation. Tomotherapy is a CT image guided IMRT.
","2009" "20091043","Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Should a second primary lymphoma be accessioned if the reporting hospital disagrees with the final diagnosis stated on a review of slides? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient had an original diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3) of lung in 1986 and later presents with small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9670/3) of small bowel in 2008 at Hospital A. Slides sent for review at Hospital B where patient was also seen. Slides there read as low grade B-cell lymphoma most consistent with extranodal marginal B-cell lymphoma of mucosal associated tissue (MALT Lymphoma). Hospital A's pathology report stated that immunostains would exclude mantle cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma and the original pathology report has not been amended to match the outside path diagnosis. Is this a second primary of MALT lymphoma (9699)?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case.
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.
","2009" "20091042","Multiple primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: How many primaries should be coded when a patient has multiple occurrences of plasmacytoma followed by a diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.","Example: Patient had a diagnosis on February 2003, plasmacytoma of the sinus; June 2003, plasmacytoma of the alveolar ridge; July 2003, plasmacytoma of the skin; and June 2004, multiple myeloma.
If this represents a transformation of plasmacytomas to multiple myeloma, will the information on multiple myeloma be available for statistical and research purposes?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Accession this case as plasmacytoma diagnosed in Feb. 2003. Each of the subsequent diagnoses are not abstracted as new primaries. They are the ""same,"" one primary only, according to the Definition of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table).
The 2003 diagnosis is a classic example of extraosseous plasmacytoma (9734/3).
Plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma would be two primaries in the new hematopoietic rules taking effect in 2010.
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.
","2009" "20091041","CS Lymph Nodes--Ovary: Are positive lymph nodes removed from ""colon tissue"" during a modified posterior pelvic debulking regional or distant? If regional, what is the appropriate CS LN code?
","","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.Pericolonic lymph nodes are ""regional"" lymph nodes for an ovarian primary. If you do not have enough information to assign codes 12-30, assign code 50 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS].
","2009" "20091040","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for an ""infiltrating papillary carcinoma"" of the breast when there is no mention of ductal or adenocarcinoma in the pathology report?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8503 [Papillary adenocarcinoma]. Rule H14 applies.
ICD-O-3 code 8050 does not apply in this case. Refer to the numeric listing in ICD-O-3. 8050 is a squamous cell neoplasm. Papillary carcinoma of the breast is NOT a squamous cell neoplasm. It is a neoplasm of the breast parenchyma - ducts, lobules or connective tissue. 8503 is the correct code in this case.
","2009" "20091039","CS Tumor Size--Lung:. Does code 997 (diffuse, entire lobe) for lung and main stem bronchus take precedence over a stated tumor size? See Discussion.","Per SPCSM 2007 'Coding Instructions for CS Staging Data Items-CS Tumor Size' item 5c states that code 998 (diffuse, entire lung) for lung and main stem bronchus takes precedence over any mention of size. Does this apply to code 997 as well?","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 the stated tumor size rather than 997. Code 997 does not take precedence over tumor size at this time. According to CoC, the instructions in the CS Manual, Part I-27, rule 5c are to alert the user to special circumstances. Code 997 is not included because it is not diffuse for all of the sites listed. The site-specific rules and codes in the schema always take precedence. Further instructions and clarifications will be added to the lung schema, CS Manual Part II-317 in the next version of CS.
","2009" "20091038","CS Tumor Size--Breast: Do the tumor size instructions in the CS Manual take priority over those in the SEER manual? See Discussion.","In regards to priority order of sources to be used in coding size for breast and lung, we are instructed to use the site-specific instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual over the general instructions in the CS Manual (see SINQ 20061109). Thus, physical exam size would be used over an imaging size. I&R question 2389 instructs registrars to use an imaging size over a physical exam size. This inconsistency creates confusion for them. Do the answers given in I&R not take into account the information in the SEER Manual? As a SEER Registry, which rules do we tell our hospitals to use? Are ACoS accredited hospitals required to use I&R over SINQ?","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 current SEER instructions and the CS instructions for source of tumor size information are the same. The tumor size priority source instruction in the 2004 SEER manual is not included in the 2007 SEER manual. SINQ 20061109 has been updated for clarification. There is no conflict between SEER instructions and I&R instructions at this time. SEER and the CoC collaborate, endeavoring to provide consistent instructions and to resolve inconsistencies.
","2009" "20091037","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How is histology coded for a ""low grade neuroglial tumor"" of the fourth ventricle?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].
According to our pathologist consultant, low grade neuroglial tumor of the fourth ventricle correlates best to the ""rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle"" which is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.
","2009" "20091036","CS Mets at DX/CS Extension--Ovary: Is carcinomatosis always captured in the CS Mets field? Can the term carcinomatosis be used to describe peritoneal implants as well? See Discussion.","1/18/06 CT guided biopsy of abdominal mass & ant peritoneum nodule: Extensive carcinomatosis affecting the paracolic gutters, liver surface & pelvis. 6 cm tumor mass was visibly engulfing the small bowel & tube; poorly differentiated adenoca, mullerian derived, shows attributes of clear cell carcinoma, high grade (FIGO III), 2.5 cm size, does not involve fallopian tube. R&L abdominal wall & mesentery, mets adenoca.
5/31/06: tumor debulking with right salpingo-oophorectomy. Final DX: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, clear cell type, right ovary (FIGO III), stage IV per MD.
","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.In the case of ovarian cancer, the term carcinomatosis may refer to peritoneal implants, especially when the implants are numerous. It does not refer to distant metastases in this context.
This issue has been forwarded to the CS version 2 committee.
","2009" "20091035","CS Extension--Ovary: What code is used to capture omental caking?","","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 term ""omental caking"" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.
When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case.
","2009" "20091034","CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.","","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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state ""seeding,"" ""talcum powder appearance,"" ""salting,"" and ""studding"" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.
The word ""miliary"" is not documented as a synonym for implants.
The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.
","2009" "20091033","CS Tumor Size--Ovary: Can the size of a tumor mass shadow seen on a CT scan be used to code CS Tumor Size? See Discussion.","Ovarian primary: No surgery performed. CT abd/pelvis states ""Bilateral pleural effusions, ascites. Right appendix region with tumor mass shadow 3 x 8 x 3.9cm""","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 CS tumor size 999 [Unknown; size not stated]. The size of the tumor is not known in this case.
Note that tumor size is not used for AJCC staging for ovary.
","2009" "20091032","Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: How should this field be coded for an ovarian primary when there is a BSO and only the fundus of uterus is removed (not a full hysterectomy)?","","Assign surgery code 52 [Bilateral (salpingo-) oophorectomy; WITH hysterectomy]. Code 52 does not exclude a partial hysterectomy.","2009" "20091031","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is histology coded for a thyroid tumor described as ""predominantly papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant, follicular type""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] according to rule H15 for Other Sites.
""Predominantly"" and ""type"" indicate specific histologies. ""Variant"" does not. See rule H13. The histology in this case is papillary and follicular. Tall cell variant is ignored.
","2009" "20091030","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion.","Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.
For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.
","2009" "20091029","MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How should histology be coded for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus, NOS or a nevus, NOS?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8720 [Melanoma, NOS] to melanoma arising in a nevus that does not have a specific code or to melanoma arising in a nevus, NOS.
Currently, ICD-O-3 does not have a specific classification for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus.
","2009" "20091028","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.
","1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.
According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled "" Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008,"" found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, ""colon""). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.
This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled ""Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008."" For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).
","2009" "20091027","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded in a patient with a 4/5/08 left thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of follicular carcinoma followed by a 7/25/08 right thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M17 under Other Sites applies. These are separate primaries based on their ICD-O-3 histology codes. Follicular carcinoma is coded 8330. Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant is coded 8340. The histology codes are different at the third number. Rule M6 does not apply because these diagnoses are more than 60 days apart.
","2009" "20091026","CS Extension--Extramedullary Plasmacytoma: Under what circumstance would CS extension code 80 be used in a case of extramedullary plasmacytoma?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 CS extension code 80 [Systemic disease] for extramedullary plasmacytoma involving more than one site. Use code 80 when extramedullary plasmacytoma is NOT single, solitary, unifocal, isolated, mono-ostotic or localized. Code 80 can also be used when the bone marrow is involved but the plasma cells are <10%.
Do not apply EOD instructions to CS.
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.
","2009" "20091025","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.
","Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.
For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.
","2009" "20091024","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion.
","Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007.
Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 ""multiple tumors"" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later.
For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary.
","2009" "20091023","Sugery of Primary Site--Breast: When a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and bilateral mastectomies are done, do you code the total mastectomies to 40 or 41 or 42?","","Abstract cancer of the left breast and cancer of the right breast as separate primaries. Code the surgery for each primary independent of the other primary.
For the first primary, assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].
For the second primary, assign the code for the procedure performed on that site.
","2009" "20091021","Behavior/Reportability--All sites: Would a GIST tumor stated to be ""high risk for malignant behavior"" be a reportable GIST? See Discussion.
","According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms ""malignant"" and ""benign"" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term ""high risk for malignant behavior"" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf.
","Do not report the case to SEER if it does not satisfy the criteria for reportability. According to the current reportability criteria, malignant GIST (8936/3) is reportable to SEER. GIST coded to 8936/0 or 8936/1 is not reportable. If your pathologist will not indicate ""malignant"" or ""benign,"" code 8936/1 applies according to ICD-O-3 and, therefore, these are not reportable to SEER.
","2009" "20091020","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How do you code histology for a breast tumor when the comment section of the pathology report compares the current resected specimen with a previous needle biopsy? See Discussion.","A single tumor is described on the breast needle biopsy as ""infiltrating lobular carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ"" and on the lumpectomy specimen as ""infiltrating duct carcinoma."" Per the COMMENT section on the pathology report: ""Tumor resection was compared to previous needle biopsy. The appropriate designation is probably a terminal duct/lobular lesion.""","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8522 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] according to Breast MP/H rule H16. The comment on the lumpectomy pathology report takes both the lumpectomy information and the biopsy information into consideration. ""Probable"" is an ambiguous term used to code histology.","2009" "20091019","MP/H Rules/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be made if a bone marrow biopsy is negative? See Discussion.","Patient with large mass nasal cavity. Biopsy shows plasmacytoma. Fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is consistent with multiple myeloma. Skeletal survey shows multiple lytic lesions. Bone marrow biopsy is negative for myeloma. In light of negative bone marrow biopsy can this case be coded as multiple myeloma?","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code this case as multiple myeloma. The fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is a biopsy of bone marrow. According to our pathologist consultant, the positive bone marrow biopsy (acetabulum) and the multiple lytic bone lesions confirm multiple myeloma. The negative bone marrow biopsy is likely due to an insufficient sample.
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.
","2009" "20091018","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/CS Extension: How many primaries are to be accessioned when tumors are present bilaterally in the pleura and fallopian tubes? See Discussion.","For both pleura and fallopian tube, the MP/H rules indicate that bilateral involvement of these sites should be coded as multiple primaries. However, both of these sites have CS extension codes that classify the contralateral disease as regional extension.
Is a case described as a left sided pleural mesothelioma that has right sided pleural disease coded as one or two primaries? How is CS coded?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For a pleural or fallopian tube primary, if there is tumor(s) on the left and separate tumor(s) on the right and neither is stated to be metastatic from the other, abstract as multiple primaries according to rule M8 for other sites. If both sides are involved, but there is only one tumor, rule M2 for other sites applies and this is a single primary. Code each primary separately in CS.
","2009" "20091017","Primary site--Esophagus: How is primary site coded for a tumor arising in a segment of the esophagus that was reconstructed using a segment of the colon? See Discussion.
","A patient had a ruptured esophagus 25 years ago and had a segment of colon removed and transplanted to serve as esophagus. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with carcinoma in a polyp by endoscopic biopsy of the transplanted 'esophagus'. What is the primary site code? Is this the same site schema to be used for Collaborative staging and surgery coding?
","Code the primary site esophagus, NOS [C159]. Use the surgery codes and collaborative staging schema for esophagus. Document the unusual nature of this case in text fields.
","2009" "20091016","CS Extension--Pancreas: How do you code this field for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of portal and splenic veins? See Discussion.","The splenic artery/vein is only mentioned in the body and tail scheme; no mention is made of this site in the pancreatic head scheme.","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 CS extension code 54 [major blood vessels]. The portal vein is listed under code 54 for head of pancreas. The splenic vein branches from the portal vein.
","2009" "20091015","MP/H Rules/Histology--Gallbladder: What histology is coded for a tumor described as ""90% high grade neuroendocrine ca, large cell type; and 10% low grade adenocarcinoma, conventional type""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
MP/H Rule H17 for Other Sites applies. Code the histology 8140 [adenocarcinoma].
The ICD-O-3 code for large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8013 and the code for adenocarcinoma is 8140.
","2009" "20091014","MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Please clarify what we should code when we see the term 'spitz or spitzoid' in association with melanomas. See Discussion.
","Path reports often diagnose ""melanoma with spitzoid features."" There is no code for this in ICD-O-3. Would it be melanoma NOS with a specific type for MP/H rule H9 (with features of...), or would we stop at H3? Could the matrix principle apply, changing 8770/0 (one of the synonyms is Spitz nevus) to 8770/3 (although no Spitz synonyms are specifically listed under this code)? What if the path report says ""melanoma arising in a Spitz nevus""?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 - 2020
Assign code 8720/3 [Malignant melanoma] for melanoma with Spitzoid features, Spitzoid variant of nevoid melanoma, melanoma arising in Spitz nevus, or Spitzoid melanoma. The WHO Classification of Tumors groups these with Nevoid melanomas and codes them to 8720/3.
According to WHO, ""Nevoid melanoma is a subtype of malignant melanoma of the skin that is distinctive in that the primary lesion mimics many of the architectural features of a common compound or intradermal nevus ... or a Spitz nevus... These lesions are defined not as atypical nevi, but as melanomas because they involve the dermis and have the potential for metastasis.""
","2009" "20091013","Reportability--Skin: Is a ""basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation"" reportable?
","","The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.
According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.
The case example above is not reportable to SEER.
","2009" "20091012","MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states ""see microscopic description,"" can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion.","In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation ""see microscopic description"" or ""see description"". Example: ""Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description."" The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement ""consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma."" Can we use this microscopic description or not?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.
Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.
","2009" "20091011","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded for a tumor diagnosed as ""intraductal papillary carcinoma (neuroendocrine differentiation)""? See Discussion.","Final diagnosis states: Right breast, excisional bx with findings most consistent with intraductal papillary carcinoma (neuroendocrine DCIS). The path micro states: the morphologic features are those of a neuroendrocrine-type tumor & IHC stains confirm neuroendocrine differentiation.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8503/2 [Intraductal papillary carcinoma] using Breast rule H2. Code the histology from the final diagnosis.
There is no code for neuroendocrine DCIS in ICD-O-3.
","2009" "20091010","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded when a final diagnosis on a lumpectomy specimen states ""adenocarcinoma"" but the regional lymph nodes show ""poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation""? See Discussion.","3/23 left breast mass bx: infiltrating lobular carcinoma.
6/22 left breast lumpectomy: infiltrating adenocarcinoma; sentinel lymph nodes with metastatic poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation. Axillary resection with poorly differentiated metastasis in 8/9 nodes. The path micro states: tissue consists of sections of breast tissue having an infiltrating ca which in some areas infiltrates as small duct-like structures, and in other areas as small gland-like structures. In addition, there are foci in which the cells infiltrate in a single file fashion. In a few areas, cells having a signet ring appearance similar to those seen in the lymph nodes are encountered. In other areas, the signet ring appearance is not prominent. Areas of ductal or lobular ca in situ are not identified (the lymph node resection specimen shows 'signet ring appearance in some areas but no ductlike or tubular structures observed')
The comment on the lumpectomy path states: 'This is an unusual tumor in that it has histologic characteristics in varying areas, which would be consistent with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma, tubular carcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma. The metastatic material (8/9 total axillary lymph nodes) is most consistent with the poorly differentiated signet ring type portion of the tumor undergoing metastasis.'
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] using Breast rule H14.
Code the histology from the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the most representative specimen (the lumpectomy in this case). Do not code histology from the microscopic description. Code the histology from the primary site whenever available, not the metastatic site.
Comments on pathology reports can be used to code histology. However, in this case the final diagnosis is more definitive than the comments. The comment provides several choices and none of these appear in the final diagnosis; an indication that the pathologist was not able to clearly identify a more specific type in this case.
","2009" "20091009","MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion.","Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question.","2009" "20091008","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a mastectomy and a sentinel lymph node excision, that yields only one lymph node, are performed? See Discussion.","Is there a minimum number of lymph nodes that must be removed in order to code a modified radical mastectomy?","Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy...] for a simple mastectomy with removal of one or more sentinel lymph nodes. As long as the nodes removed are designated sentinel, use code 41 for a simple mastectomy.","2009" "20091007","CS Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius?","","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 CS extension code 20
[Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS
(EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11)
Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].
A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina.
","2009" "20091006","Primary site--Lung: What primary site code is used for bronchus intermedius?
","","Assign code C340 [main bronchus].
The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main bronchus on the right side. The bronchus intermedius begins just below the point where the upper lobe bronchus branches off from the main bronchus. The bronchus intermedius branches into the middle lobe bronchus and the lower lobe bronchus.
","2009" "20091004","
Reportability--Kidney: Is the donor or the recipient the reportable patient when a cyst removed from a pre-transplanted kidney is determined to be cancerous? See Discussion.
","A patient received a kidney from her son. The son's kidney had a cyst which was removed prior to the transplant and later determined to be renal cell ca. Who do we report, the donor or the recipient?
","The renal cell carcinoma should be reported for the donor. The cyst that was determined to be carcinoma was removed before the kidney was transplanted.
","2009" "20091003","MP/H Rules/Histology--Peritoneal primary: Can the cell types from the primary site and a metastatic site be combined to code histology? See Discussion.","Patient has vaginal mass biopsy diagnosed as 'papillary carcinoma with psammoma bodies.' Two weeks later the patient has laparoscopy with multiple peritoneal biopsies, diagnosed as 'well differentiated serous adenocarcinoma'. Patient stated to have peritoneal primary with mets to vagina and was treated with chemotherapy. Do we code the histology to 8441/31 from the primary site biopsies, or can we use 8460/3, combining the cell types from the primary and metastatic sites? Please see SINQ 20041062 for a similar question before the 2007 MP/H rules.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma, NOS].
Code the histology from the primary site when available. Do not combine histologies from primary and metastatic sites.
In this primary peritoneal case, the diagnosis from the peritoneal biopsies was serous adenocarcinoma.
","2009" "20091002","Multiplicity Counter--Ovary: Given the diffuse nature of ovarian cancer, should we count bilateral parenchymal involvment of ovaries as two tumors? See Discussion.
","Are peritoneal implants mets and not counted as separate tumors, even though they're not stated to be metastatic in the path report, and are not coded as distant mets?
","Code Multiplicity Counter to 02 [Two tumors present] for an epithelial ovarian primary involving both ovaries. Do not count the peritoneal implants; they are regional metastasis and not included in the multiplicity counter. An example like this will be added to the manual in the next revision.
","2009" "20091001","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: Are lymph nodes in the pericolic mesentery of the sigmoid that are removed during ovarian cancer debulking surgery, coded as regional or distant? See Discussion.","Debulking surgery found tumor in both ovaries and in lymph nodes of pericolic mesentery, which was removed en bloc with a segment of sigmoid colon (colon had tumor implants involving serosa). Pericolic nodes are not listed as regional for ovary. However Note 2 in the CS manual for Extension states ""sigmoid mesentery"" is a regional pelvic organ, and that metastatic deposits here should be coded in the extension field, not as distant mets. Should lymph nodes from this same area be coded as regional or distant?","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.
Lymph nodes in the mesentery of the sigmoid colon are regional for an ovarian primary. Code involved sigmoid mesenteric nodes under CS Lymph Nodes.
","2009" "20081141","MP/H Rules--Lung: How do we interpret 'spiculated opacities?' How many primaries do we abstract for this patient? See Discussion.
","Patient admitted for CT scan of chest. Impression: A small subpleural spiculated opacity is noted in the left upper lobe measuring 9.7x7.7mm. Right upper lobe spiculated nodular opacity measures 13.9x5.9mm. Right lower lobe scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities are noted. The lungs are otherwise clear. Abnormal soft tissue density mass is noted of the right hilum surrounding the distal main right pulmonary artery. Bronchoscopy/mediastinoscopy done: rare malignant cells present consistent with small cell carcinoma, specimen submitted as brushing of right bronchus intermedius. The tumor in the lymph node is metastatic small cell carcinoma. Patient discharged to hospice; died 5 weeks later.
Do the MP/H rules pertain only to the measured opacities in each lung and not to the RLL scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities? The right side was cytologically confirmed. But if we abstract the left lung, what is the histology...8041 or 8000?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Because there was cytologic confirmation of cancer, for this case only count the spiculated opacities as tumors. Abstract as a single primary using Rule M1. Note 2 under lung rule M1 applies to this case.
Code the histology as 8041 [small cell carcinoma] per rule H10.
","2008" "20081139","Date Multiple Tumors--Prostate: For a prostate biopsy done 10/20/08, both lobes involved with tumor, unknown how many tumors, what would be coded in date of multiple tumors?","","In this case, code the date of the biopsy in Date of Multiple Tumors [10202008]. When the number of tumors is unknown, code the date of diagnosis as the Date of Multiple Tumors. This is the date on which it was determined that there were an unknown number of tumors. This instruction will be added to next edition of the MP/H manual.","2008" "20081138","MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for a neuroendocrine neoplasm described as a carcinoid and also referred to as oncocytic? See Discussion.","Left mainstem bronchus mass excised: metaplastic endobronchial mucosa with submucosa containing an infiltrating poorly diff malignant tumor. Origin of tumor is not identified in overlying mucosa. IHC stains will be performed.
Addendum #1. IHC stains show well diff neuroendocrine neoplasm, favor carcinoid. Recommend sending this to expert in lung neoplastic pathologist.
Addendum #2. (lung path specialist) oncocytic neuroendocrine neoplasm.
Is this 8246 or 8290 or something else?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code as 8246 [Neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, the neuroendocrine description is more specific than the oncocytic description in this case.","2008" "20081136","CS Extension--Corpus uteri: Can a suspicious cytology be used to code extension? See Discussion.","Endometrial primary confirmed by biopsy on 10/26/06. Pelvic washing on 11/14/06 was 'suspicious for malignancy.' Resection path the same day stated the primary tumor invades the inner 1/3 of the myometrium.
Can we use the pelvic washing cytology & code CS extension 61 or should CS extension be coded 12?
","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 extension code 61 [cancer cells in peritoneal washings] for the case described above.
""Suspicious"" is listed as a term indicating involvement. There is no exception noted for cytology reports. See page 122 of the 2007 SEER manual.
","2008" "20081135","MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.
However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.
","Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.
","2008" "20081134","MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion.
","Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors.
The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules.
","2008" "20081133","MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types.","2008" "20081132","MP/H Rules--Breast: What is the histology code for a breast tumor that is ductal ca with focal squamous differentiation? See Discussion.","SINQ 20021062 states for cases Dx'd prior to 2007, use 8570. Is 8570 also used when the squamous differentiation is focal?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8500 [duct carcinoma]. Ignore histologies described as ""focal,"" ""focus,"" or ""foci."" This instruction will be added to the histology rules in the upcoming revision of the MP/H manual.","2008" "20081131","MP/H Rules--Colon: What histology would you assign to a single tumor with the histology 'well differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma confined to the appendix'? Does rule H4 apply to this diagnosis or should we continue on in the rules to H14 and code the higher histology?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H4.
Stop at the first rule that applies to the case. Rule H4 is the first rule that applies.
The polyp rule, H4, comes before many of the other colon rules because it is important to know that the malignancy originated in a polyp.
","2008" "20081130","MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular with focal ductal features? Do we ignore the focal features and code as lobular or do we use the combination code for duct and lobular?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and assign code 8520 [lobular]. Ignore histologies described as ""focal,"" ""foci,"" or ""focus."" This instruction will be added to the next version of the MP/H manual.","2008" "20081129","MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code should be used with invasive papillary carcinoma with cribriform carcinoma component? There is also DCIS adjacent to the invasive tumor, predominant cribriform and focal papillary patterns. This is a single breast tumor. See Discussion.","Registry staff is divided between 8523 and 8255.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
First apply rule H9, code the invasive. To determine the code for the invasive histology, start with rule H10 and stop at rule H15. Code the histology 8503 [papillary]. Papillary (8503) and cribriform (8201) are listed in Table 1 as specific duct types, but in this case they are invasive.
Table 1 and Table 2 will be clarified in the next version of the MP/H rules.
","2008" "20081128","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for the following?
4/21/03 Left breast: infiltrating ductal carcinoma, grade 3 micropapillary type. Tumor size: 3.5 cms; deep margin negative. Skin, nipple & areola positive for invasive ductal carcinoma. Dermal lymphatic invasion by carcinoma breast. Extensive intraductal component absent. 6+/6. See Discussion.
","How should histology be coded for a 2003 diagnosis and also for the same diagnosis in 2007 or later?","For a case diagnosed in 2003, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. See Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, revised August 2002, 3rd example on page 5 and page 3, #4.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. Use rule H12.
","2008" "20081127","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How would the histology ""micropapillary carcinoma"" of the thyroid be coded for cases dx'd 2007 and after?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] according to rule H14.
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.
","2008" "20081126","MP/H Rules--Brain and CNS: Are stigmata of neurofibromatosis in the brain reportable neurofibromatosis lesions? See Discussion.
","Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 through 2017
Accession NF (9540/1) when there is CNS tumor -- a glioma or some other intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Stigmata of NF are reportable when the stigmata themselves are reportable tumors. For example, glioma, or another intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Do not report sitgmata that are only termed ""stigmata seen on MRI,"" for example, without other reportable terminology.
Do NOT accession NF (9540/1) when there is only peripheral nerve/nervous system involvement.
Accession the neurofibromatosis itself only once per patient. Accession any initial neoplasm in the CNS separately. Abstract and code any subsequent CNS neoplasms according to the multiple primary brain rules.
Accession three primaries for the case described above.
--> Optic nerve gliomas associated with NF are pilocytic astrocytomas. Code pilocytic astrocytoma as 9421/3 in North America.
For cases diagnosed 2018 or later
See the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant CNS tumors.
","2008" "20081125","Reportability: Is the following tumor(s) reportable? MRI of thoracic spine shows intramedullary hemangiomas in the bodies of T5 and T6.","","Intramedullary hemangiomas in T5 and T6 are not reportable.
These benign tumors originate in the bone, not spinal canal, cord or dura. Benign tumors of the bone are not reportable.
According to WHO, the most common sites of involvement are the vertebral bodies, followed by craniofacial skeleton and long bones.
","2008" "20081124","CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is CS Extension coded for a malignant meningioma that demonstrates extension into adjacent brain tissue?
For malignant brain tumors, code 60 represents extension into the meninges. Would code 60 be the correct code for extension from a malignant meningioma into brain tissue?
","","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 CS extension code 60 for malignant meningioma with extension to adjacent brain tissue.
According to the I&R, this section of CS was taken directly from SEER Summary Staging, since AJCC does not have a staging system for these tumors.
","2008" "20081123","Reportability--Brain: Is angiocentric glioma, WHO grade 1 of the right frontal lobe reportable? If so, how is histology to be coded?","","Angiocentric glioma is reportable. The best histology code currently available is 9380/1 [glioma, NOS; uncertain behavior].
According to the WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumours, Angiocentric glioma has a behavior of /1. WHO defines it as an epilepsy-associated stable or slowly growing cerebral tumour primarily affecting children and young adults; histopathologicaly characterized by an angiocentric pattern of growth, monomorphous bipolar cells and features of ependymal differentiation.
","2008" "20081122","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Patient has single invasive left breast tumor diagnosed in 2008. Final pathology diagnosis is ""Invasive solid papillary carcinoma"". No mention of ductal in report. What is histology?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
As of July 2010:
Code the histology 8503 [Infiltrating papillary adenocarcinoma].
This is solid papillary, not solid AND papillary carcinoma. Solid is an adjective modifying papillary, in other words, a subtype of papillary. We do not have a code for solid papillary, so we code to the NOS, papillary using rule H14.
","2008" "20081121","Multiple primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded in this situation?
How would the bone marrow involvement by only NHL be handled? Composite lymphoma (9596) as defined by SEER and ICD-O is NHL and HD in one node which fits the final impression on the removed cervical node. See Discussion.
","Patient presented with cervical, supraclavicular & superior mediastinal lymphadenopathy. A cervical node was excised for pathological review. The final impression on that node was Composite lymphoma characterized by (1) Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma [HD] (2) CLL/SLL [NHL]. Then, a bone marrow aspirate/bx was performed revealing CLL/SLL [NHL].","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is a single primary. The histology code is 9596/3 [composite Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma].
According to the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9596/3 followed by 9670/3 is one primary.
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.
","2008" "20081120","MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.","A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
","2008" "20081119","Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
","A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled ""presumed hepatocellular carcinoma."" Weeks later it is back to ""worrisome for hepatoma."" A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
","When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. ""Consistent with"" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept ""consistent with"" over the non-reportable term ""possibly.""
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
","2008" "20081118","Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How is this field to be coded when a patient undergoes stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor? Path specimen consists of four fragments of tissue measuring .7, .6 and .3 cm.","","Assign code 20 [Local excision (biopsy) of lesion or mass. Specimen sent to pathology from surgical event 20].","2008" "20081117","Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology to be coded for a pituicytoma WHO grade I, of the pituitary?","","Assign code 9380/1 [glioma, borderline].
According to our pathologist consultant, the term pituicytoma is restricted to low-grade glial neoplasms of the neurohypophysis or infundibulum. The best category currently available for these is glioma.
","2008" "20081116","CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant brain tumor that presents as a lesion with significant pressure on the left frontal ventricle and dilation of the right ventricles? See Discussion.","CS Extension code 30 includes tumor that invades or encroaches upon the ventricular system. Does significant pressure mean the same thing as encroach?","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.Do not assign extension code 30 in this case unless there is evidence elsewhere of ventricular system involvement.
""Significant pressure"" is not synonymous with encroachment or involvement. See the list of ambiguous terms for CS staging on page 121 of the 2007 SEER manual.
","2008" "20081115","CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant tumor presenting as a confluent lesion over right parietal, posterior frontal and thalamic regions?","","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 CS extension code 40 [Tumor crosses the midline; Tumor involves contralateral hemisphere; Tumor involves corpus callosum (including splenium)]
The thalamus is located between the corpus callosum and the cerebellum and brain stem. A supratentorial tumor extending to the thalamus involves the corpus callosum (extension code 40) but has not yet reached the cerebellum or brain stem. Code 40 applies, but code 50 or any higher code is not applicable in this case.
","2008" "20081114","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion.
","Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: ""Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a ""new growth"" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor.""
How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).
Reference: I&R 14825
","Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules.
According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF.
","2008" "20081113","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a cavernoma reportable as a benign brain tumor? See Discussion.
","Cavernous hemangiomas are typically described as vascular malformations in the brain. Per a search of the literature, cavernoma, cavernous hemangioma and cavernous malformation are all synonymous. There is some controversy as to whether cavernomas are vascular malformations or tumors. Cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) has been assigned a code in the ICD-O-3. The other terms are not even listed. Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. Would we report a lesion that is labeled cavernous hemangioma but not one that is labeled carvernoma? Are cavernous malformations of the brain to be reported as benign brain tumors? The MP/H guidelines for benign brain tumors do not include blood vessel tumors in chart 1.
Are the following tumors reportable? If so, what is the primary site?
Example 1: Patient admitted for resection. Clinical diagnosis is left temporal cavernous hemangioma. Path diagnosis is cerebral cortex and white matter showing cavernoma.
Example 2: Patient admitted for resection with clinical diagnosis of parietal cavernous hemangioma. Path shows A-V malformation.
Example 3: Patient had T4 spinal tumor removed. Path showed cavernous angioma.
Reference: I&R 18109 and 23460
","Cavernoma is a reportable benign brain tumor. According to our pathologist consultant, cavernoma is synonymous with cavernous hemangioma.
Examples
1. Reportable. Primary site - C710 [cerebrum]
2. Not reportable. Path dx disproves clinical diagnosis.
3. Not reportable. Not a brain tumor.
","2008" "20081112","MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion.","The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.
","2008" "20081111","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
","According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to ""necrosis"" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the ""comedo necrosis"" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.
","2008" "20081110","MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion.
","Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
","2008" "20081109","MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.
","A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.
The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.
Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.
Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.
","2008" "20081108","CS Extension--Pancreas: How is this field coded for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of the inferior vena cava?","","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 CS extension code 54 [Blood vessel(s) major]. The inferior vena cava is one of the major blood vessels.
The inferior vena cava is located just behind the head of the pancreas. The hepatic artery, the superior mesenteric vessels and the portal vein are nearby.
","2008" "20081107","Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis?","","If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual.","2008" "20081106","MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?
Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.
Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.
See Discussion.
","According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, ""Three foci of ductal carcinoma,"" which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.
Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.
","2008" "20081105","Primary site/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: What is the primary site for lymphoma involving lymph nodes and tonsil? Is a tonsillectomy coded as surgery for lymphoma? See Discussion.","6/1/2008 cervical lymph node biopsy showed lymphoma. A 6/3/2008 CT Chest/abdomen showed mediastinal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy. A 6/15/2008 tonsillectomy is performed for markedly enlarged right tonsil. Tonsil pathology reveals extensive lymphoma involvement.
Nothing in the chart specifies the primary site.
Should this be a C778 primary because of 3 lymph node areas plus tonsil (a lymphatic organ)? Or should it be coded to C099 Tonsil?
Is this tonsillectomy coded as surgical therapy? If so, is it surgery of primary site or surgery of other site?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the primary site to tonsil (C099). This advanced stage lymphoma involves an extranodal site (tonsil) and that site's regional lymph nodes (cervical). The lymphoma has also spread to non-regional lymph nodes (mediastinal and mesenteric). Code the tonsillectomy as surgery of primary site.
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.
","2008" "20081103","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: What code should be used for the the following? There is no mention of LNS clinically; the patient has neoadjuvant therapy; and the LNS are matted pathologically.","","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.Use the information from the pathologic evaluation to code CS Lymph nodes.
In the nodes evaluation field, assign code 6 [Regional lymph nodes removed for examination with pre-surgical systemic treatment or radiation and lymph node evaluation based on pathologic evidence]. See CS Lymph Nodes note 4.
","2008" "20081101","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.
","In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.
","2008" "20081100","MP/H Rules/Histology--Rectum: When not specifically mentioned as part of the histology, is the adenoma a second histologic type, or just a further physical description of the tumor? See Discussion.
","Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: ""mucinous carcinoma, see comment"". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states ""histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma"".
If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.'
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later
Other Sites histology rule H12 applies in this case. Assign histology code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Use information from the CAP protocol and from comments associated with the final diagnosis to code histology.
The fact that the malignancy arose in a polyp can be taken from anywhere in the medical record; not limited to the final diagnosis.
Based on the information provided for this case, the histology is adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma) arising in a tubulovillous adenoma.
","2008" "20081099","MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion.","How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, ""recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS."" Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases.
Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007.
","2008" "20081098","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How do you use Rule H5 or H6 to code ""moderately diff adenoca with mucinous component""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma]. Rule H6 applies because the final diagnosis is not ""mucinous adenocarcinoma"" and the percentage of mucinous adenocarcinoma is not stated.
Rule H13 does not apply because ""component"" is not a term that indicates a specific histology.
","2008" "20081097","DCO/Systemic Treatment, Surgery Sequence: How does SEER want systemic treatment/surgery sequence coded for a DCO case?","","Assign code 0 [No systemic therapy and/or surgical
treatment] as a default for DCO cases.
","2008" "20081096","Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity?","","No, ""Alias"" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm.","2008" "20081095","Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: If birthplace is Brazil or Portugal, patient's last name is on the Spanish Surname list, and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity, what is the correct Spanish Ethnicity code: 0 or 7? See Discussion.","See also SINQ 20081075.","Assign code 7 [Spanish surname only] when the last name is on the Spanish Surname list. This includes cases for which the birthplace is Brazil, Portugal or the Philippines and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity.
The instruction to use code 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic] in the SEER manual on page 51 (#2) applies when the only information available is the birthplace or a statement of ""Portuguese,"" ""Brazilian"" or ""Filipino.""
","2008" "20081094","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Now that code 50 [fixed/matted ipsilateral axillary LNS, NOS] is obsolete, how is this field coded for a case in which there are clinically matted lymph nodes, no neoadjuvant therapy, and no lymph node size on the available pathology report?","","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.From the American College of Surgeons: The pathologic information always takes precedence over the clinical information when there is no neoadjuvant therapy. The size reference is that this is not ITC or micromets. Clinically, I don't think you can have fixed or matted nodes that aren't greater than micromets. This would be coded to 52. The mapping for all of these codes is not taken from this, but from the value of SSF3 per the note at the bottom of the table. See CS Lymph Nodes note 2.
","2008" "20081093","CS Extension: How is CS Ext coded for the following?
Rretroperitoneal primary
Cystic mucinous tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma
There is no CS Extension code for intraepithelial ca in the retroperitoneal scheme.
","","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.According to the American College of Surgeons I & R system, assign code 10 [confined to site of origin] for intraepithelial carcinoma of the retroperitoneum.
","2008" "20081090","MP/H Rules: Does the presence of metastases affect the application of the MP/H rules? See Discussion.","Single lung tumors presenting in each lung but the patient also presents with bone mets? Would rule M6 apply? Or do the bone mets represent additional tumors?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Ignore metastases when applying the rules.
For the case above, use rule M6 and abstract as two primaries (right lung and left lung). The bone mets are ignored.
","2008" "20081089","Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is this field coded for a tumor described as ""multinodular carcinoma of the thyroid""? See Discussion.","This information is from a pathology report. No other information is available.","Count the number of measured nodules. If the nodules are not measured, code 99 in the multiplicity counter.","2008" "20081088","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx: How should these fields be coded for an in situ diagnosis when the patient was diagnosed by biopsy only and there is no information in the chart regarding an evaluation of lymph nodes or metastatic sites? See Discussion.","In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.
This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.
I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006
A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?
I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.
Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.
","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 CS Lymph Nodes and CS Mets at Dx 00 [None] for an in situ diagnosis with no other information.
The CS instructions state that CS LN's should be coded 00 for in situ because in situ by definition is non-invasive. The same logic applies to CS mets in the case of in situ. The I&R answer will be revised.
","2008" "20081086","Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion.","Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was ""positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma."" Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign.","This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid.","2008" "20081085","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion.","None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.
The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.
","2008" "20081084","Reportability: Is a tubular adenoma reportable if the final diagnosis is ""high grade atypia"" and the diagnosis comment is ""atypia limited to muscularis mucosa areas of pseudostratification [formerly qualifying for carcinoma in situ]""?
","","This case is not reportable.
The pathologist would need to include ""carcinoma in situ"" as part of the final diagnosis in order for this case to be reportable.
","2008" "20081083","Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Is mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma followed by classical Hodgkin lymphoma reportable as one or two primaries? See Discussion.","Diagnosed 06/06/2006 with mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, 9679/36. On 05/10/2007, another mediastinal lymph node biopsy done and the diagnosis was recurrent malignant lymphoma, classical Hodgkin's. A Hematopatholgy Consultant states, ""it appears likely that the preceding mediastinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the current classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are clonally related and represent different manifestations of the same entity. One might also place this in the spectrum of 'mediastinal gray zone lymphoma' described by Dr. Jaffee and colleagues.""","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report this case as two primaries. Report non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by Hodgkin lymphoma as separate primaries.
According to the Table of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies, mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin disease are ""D"" - Different disease processes.
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.
","2008" "20081082","Histology--Head & Neck: How do you code histology for a myofibroblastic sarcoma of the soft tissue of the head and neck?","","Assign code 8825/3 [Myofibroblastoma, malignant]. According to the WHO Classification of Soft Tissue Tumors, ""Low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma represents a distinct atypical myofibroblastic tumor often with fibromatosis-like features and predilection for the head and neck."" Also called myofibrosarcoma.","2008" "20081081","Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion.","""Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma.""","The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable.","2008" "20081080","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion.","A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?","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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.
If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:
The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.
Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.
Spanish Surname or Origin Scenarios
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not ""impossible"" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.
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.
","2008" "20081073","CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for ""abuts"" or ""encased/encasing"" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.
","According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept ""abuts"" or ""encased/encasing"" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of ""CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians"", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms ""abutment"" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and ""encasement"" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.
","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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. ""Abuts"" and ""encased/encasing"" are not involvement.
The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.
","2008" "20081071","CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.","There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?
Examples:
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 SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.
If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states ""invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.
","2008" "20081070","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: How are the following lymph node regions/chains coded in the Collaborative Stage schema for ovary?
1. pericolonic
2. pelvic, NOS
3. mesenteric, NOS
","","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.Revised 7-17-09
Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 for involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, NOS.
Code involvement of pericolonic nodes or mesenteric nodes, NOS in CS lymph nodes.
","2008" "20081069","Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion.","The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown.","Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated.","2008" "20081068","Scope Regional LN Surgery--Melanoma: How is this field coded when there is no primary skin lesion and the only disease present is one axillary lymph node that reveals melanoma? See Discussion.","According to SINQ 20061045, the CS Lymph Node field is coded to 80.","Code scope of regional LN surgery 4 [1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed] for this case. One lymph node was removed. For this case, the axillary lymph node is coded as regional for the CS Lymph Node field. Therefore, include this lymph node is also coded in the Scope of Regional LN Surgery field.","2008" "20081067","CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion.","CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking.","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.
This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.
","2008" "20081066","Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion.","Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.
When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, ""When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99."" Instruction 4b states, ""Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor."" Finally, instruction 6b states, ""Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given,"" which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.
","Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only].
Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor].
","2008" "20081065","Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: Which surgery codes should be used for cases that have a 1 cm margin? See Discussion.","For a melanoma case the surgery codes in the 30's are to be used when margins are stated to be less than 1 cm. The codes in the 40's are to be used for cases where the margins are greater than 1 cm.","If the margin is exactly 1 cm, assign a surgery code from the 20-36 range. Use a code in the 40's only when the margin is greater than 1 cm.","2008" "20081064","MP/H Rules--Bladder: Is a TURBT in 4/07 that demonstrates papillary carcinoma (8130/3) followed two weeks later with biopsies that demonstrate high grade flat dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (8010/2) two primaries?
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary.
Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of ""Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC"" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual.
","2008" "20081063","MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.","Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated ""Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen.""
Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor (""There was no real tumor present there"").","2008" "20081062","MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.","Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.
Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.
Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.
Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract as separate primaries:
Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.
","2008" "20081061","Histology--Breast: What is the histology code for a 2007 diagnosis of basal-type breast carcinoma?","","Code basal-type breast carcinoma to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS].
Basal-type breast carcinoma is a subtype of infiltrating duct carcinoma thought to have a poorer prognosis. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for basal-type breast carcinoma.
","2008" "20081060","CS Tumor Size--Lung: If a 5/11/07 CT showed a 6.5 cm LLL mass and a 7/24/07 CT showed 8.4 cm LLL mass, do we code the larger tumor size identified within four months of diagnosis or do we code the first size documented at the time of diagnosis?","","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 the larger tumor size.
","2008" "20081059","Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is a right cerebellopontine (CP) angle endolymphatic sac papillary tumor (ELST) reportable? If so, what is the histology code?
","","Revised December 2015
ELST is reportable. Code histology to adenocarcinoma (8140/3). Code primary site to inner ear (C301).
Endolymphatic sac tumors are rare non-metastasizing adenocarcinomas that originate in the endolymphatic sac of the inner ear (C301). They are slow growing and widely invade, and in later stages often destroy, the petrous bone. The WHO Classification assigns ICD-O-3 code 8140/3.
","2008" "20081058","Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the histology coded for a mixed glioneuronal tumor, such as a papillary glioneuronal tumor?","","The best code available at this time is 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].","2008" "20081057","CS Extension--Lung: Chest CT shows segmental atelectasis (CS EXT code 40), but patient had Left Lower Lobe lobectomy/Lymph Node dissection with no involvment outside the lobe (pleura and all margins neg). Do we still code the atelectasis (CS Ext 40) over confined to lung (CS EXT code 10)?","","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 CS Extension code 40 [Atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar region but does not involve the entire lung (or atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis, NOS)].
CS extension code 10 does not apply when any condition described in codes 20-80 exists.
","2008" "20081056","MP/H Rules--Lung: In reference to lung, SINQ 20071028 states ""'nodule' is not an equivalent term for tumor, mass, lesion, or neoplasm."" However, slide 5 for the MPH lung section of ""Beyond the Basics"" states ""we use the words 'mass, nodule and lesion' interchangeably."" Which is it?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word ""Nodule"" can be used interchageably with ""Tumor,"" ""Mass,"" ""Lesion"" and ""Neoplasm."" HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.
This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.
","2008" "20081055","MP/H Rules--Melanoma: How many primaries are represented if subsequent to a diagnosis of malignant melanoma of skin of left thorax in April 2006, a metastatic melanoma is discovered in the soft tissue of the abdomen and in the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the groin in late 2007? See Discussion.","4/20/06: skin left lateral thorax, excision: Pedunculated malignant melanoma, 0.5 CM in height, Clark's level 3, Breslow depth 0.5 CM, superficial ulceration noted. No host response. Margins clear.
6/19/06: Four sentinel LNs negative. Interferon therapy.
10/30/07: FNA of soft tissue, left lower abdomen: consistent with metastatic melanoma.
12/20/07 A) sentinel lymph node, left groin, biopsy: No morphologic or immunophenotypic findings support for metastatic melanoma (see comment). B) skin and subcutaneous tissue, left groin, excisional biopsy: Metastatic malignant melanoma (see comment). Lymphovascular invasion identified. Margins free of melanoma. Melanoma 1.5 MM from the closest designated deep margin and 5 MM from the designated 6:00 margin. C) skin, left groin/additional inferior margin, excisional biopsy: No significant histopathologic abnormality. No evidence of villus or melanoma or malignancy. Comment: A 0.8 cm metastatic nodular melanoma is present in the adipose tissue. The underlying skin is unremarkable. There is no evidence of ulceration, melanocytic lesion, melanoma in situ, or regression of melanoma. Block A1 is sent for immunohistochemical studies. The immunophenotypic findings provide no support for metastatic melanoma in lymph node. Please see the immunohistochemical study. The primary MD states ""Recurrent intransit mets, left groin.""
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary, melanoma of the thorax 4/20/06. The subsequent reports mention metastases, but do not document another primary. Do not count metastatic lesions as new primaries.","2008" "20081054","First course treatment: Is subsequent treatment with R-ICE first course or second course therapy if the patient underwent ABVD x2 cycles and subsequent imaging showed no response to treatment and evidence of progression [new adenopathy] for a lymphoma case? See Discussion.
","Patient was initially diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Nodular Sclerosing on 3/3/06.
Patient received ABVD x 2 cycles. Had disease reassessed in May, 2006, no response to treatment, showed evidence of progression (new adenopathy). Patient's pathology from 3/06 was sent for consult: Diagnosis was Hodgkin with some overlapping features of B-cell Non Hodgkin Lymphoma. Treated 5/18/06 with R-ICE FOR NHL.
","The R-ICE treatment in this case is not part of the first course. Documentation of treatment failure and/or disease progression signifies the end of the first course of treatment.
","2008" "20081053","Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Is a splenectomy done for non-Hodgkin lymphoma diffuse large B-cell of the spleen a composite histology and a single primary if a perihilar lymph node with Hodgkin lymphoma classic type is found at the time of this surgery?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is two primaries -- Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the spleen and Hodgkin lymphoma (HD) in a lymph node.
Composite lymphoma is NHL and HD both in a single lymph node.
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.
","2008" "20081052","Histology: What is the histology code for a soft tissue thigh mass that was diagnosed as Ewing sarcoma/PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor?","","The histologies stated for this case are Ewing sarcoma (9260) and PNET, primitive neuroectodermal tumor,(9364)*. Use the Other Site Rules, starting with H8. Stop at H17 and assign the higher histology code -- 9364/3 [Peripheral neuroectodermal tumor].
*The term ""PNET"" is used for two different tumors. One is primitive neuroectodermal tumor (9473) and pertains to brain tumors per ICD-O-3 review. The other is peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor (pNET or PPNET 9364) and pertains to bone or soft tissue tumors. This case is stated to be soft tissue and Ewing sarcoma, so it is 9364 rather than 9473.
","2008" "20081051","MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: Path said adenocarcinoma of the prostate with an endometroid adenocarcinoma component. What histology code is used?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assign code 8500 [duct carcinoma].
According to The World Health Organization (WHO), the term endometrioid carcinoma of the prostate is now called Prostate Duct Carcinoma.
Using Rule H11 (one type), code 8500 (duct carcinoma) for this rare type of tumor. Do not stop at Rule H10 because this is not acinar.
","2008" "20081050","MP/H Rules--Fallopian Tube: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case in which a bilateral fallopian tube primary is staged T1c by the pathologist? See Discussion.","A bilateral fallopian tube primary was coded to multiple primaries. However, the AJCC staging for T1b says, ""tumor limited to both tubes""
and T1c ""tumor limited to one or both tubes."" The tumor is T1c according to the pathologist. Is this two T1c primaries or one?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as two primaries using Other Sites rule M8.
This issue will be reviewed during the next update to the MP/H rules.
","2008" "20081049","Histology--Pancreas: What is the correct code for ""non-secretory pancreatic endocrine tumor"" with positive lymph nodes on excision indicating a malignant tumor? Pathologist indicated it was not an exocrine tumor.","","Code as islet cell carcinoma [8150/3].
There are several cell types in the islets, and each produces a different hormone. The custom has been to name the tumors by their hormone production e.g. insulinoma, glucagonoma, etc. Occasional tumors do not produce any hormone (at least one that can be determined or measured). These tumors are called non-functioning endocrine tumors. Most of the endocrine tumors in the pancreas are islet cell tumors.
","2008" "20081048","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Ovary: How are renal lymph nodes coded for ovary primaries?","","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 involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx. Renal lymph nodes are not listed as regional lymph nodes for ovary; therefore, code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx.
","2008" "20081047","Reason no surgery of primary site/First course treatment: If the Reason no Surgery of Primary Site field is coded as 7 (refused), must the other treatment options (radiation, chemo, hormone) also be coded as 7? See Discussion.","Coding instruction #5 in the SEER manual states: ""Assign code 7 (refused) if the patient refused recommended surgery or made a blanket statement that he/she refused all treatment.""","Refused [code 7] means this modality was specifically recommended by the physician and the patient refused. If two treatment alternatives were offered and surgery was refused, code Reason no surgery of primary site 1 [Surgery of the primary site was not performed because it was not part of the planned first-course treatment].
Refusal of surgery does not necessarily mean that all treatment was refused. Coding Surgery of Primary Site as ""refused"" does not affect the coding of Radiation, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, etc.
","2008" "20081046","MP/H Rules--Corpus uteri: How is histology coded for an endometrial tumor described as an ""endometrioid adenocarcinoma with prominent squamous metaplasia""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is coded 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. This falls under the Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites, rule H17. The code for Endometroid adenocarcinoma is 8380. The code for Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia is 8570. The histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code is Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia -- 8570.
","2008" "20081045","MP/H Rules--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a regressing melanoma? See Discussion.","How is histology to be coded for the following tumors?
Example 1: Path showed malignant melanoma Histologic type: superficial spreading. Regression: present.
Example 2: Shave, mid back: malignant melanoma, lentigo melanoma type, level II, regression: present and prominent.
","For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:
Apply MP/H Melanoma Histology Coding rule H5 and code the histologic type of the melanoma.
Code example 1 as 8743 [Superficial spreading melanoma].
Code example 2 as 8742 [Lentigo maligna melanoma].
","2008" "20081044","MP/H Rules/Behavior--Melanoma of Skin: How are histology and behavior coded for a ""malignant melanoma in situ with regression""? See Discussion.","Per the microscopic portion of the path report, there is a zone of regression within the confines of the lesion, such that the possibility of antecedent invasive disease at the site cannot be ruled out with certainty.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Code malignant melanoma in situ with regression to 8720/2 [Melanoma in situ].
Code the histology according to the histologic type specified in the pathology report final diagnosis. Code the behavior as specified in the pathology report. Regression does not affect the coding of histology or behavior. See Melanoma Histology Coding rule H5. See 2007 SEER manual instructions for coding behavior, page 84.
","2008" "20081043","MPH rules--Rectum: How is the number of primaries to be determined when a treatment plan has been completed, but it is not possible to determine whether there was a disease-free interval between occurrences? See Discussion.","Patient diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the rectum in March 2006, underwent chemo and radiation therapy as treatment. Patient seen in April 2007 for surveillance colonoscopy. HPI stated patient underwent chemorad with good results. Colonoscopy showed ""persistent"" disease. Abdominal perineal resection was done in May 2007. Path showed adenocarcinoma of the rectum.
Keeping in mind that we are not to use a clinical statement for determining recurrences, is the April 2007 occurrence counted as a new primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not abstract the 2007 events as a new primary. ""Persistent disease"" indicates there was never a disease free interval.
","2008" "20081042","Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for an epidural lymphoma that extends into the bone marrow of the adjacent vertebral body?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:After verifying that the lymphoma originated in the epidural space, code to C729 [nervous system, NOS (epidural)]. This is a rare type of extranodal lymphoma.
Assign CS extension code 80 for lymphoma with bone marrow involvement.
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.
","2008" "20081041","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How many primaries are to be reported and what histology is to be coded for an anaplastic/undifferentiated thyroid carcinoma with sarcomatoid transformation likely arising in association with a papillary thyroid carcinoma? Thyroid contains one tumor: 12.5 cm in greatest dimension...almost completely replaces entire thryroid gland.","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
This is a single primary using rule M2; a single tumor is always a single primary.
The histology code for this case is 8260/3 [Papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Begin with Histology Coding rule H8. Stop at rule H17 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.
","2008" "20081040","Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?","Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.
Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.
The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.
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.
","2008" "20081039","Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.","Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.
The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.
Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.
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.
","2008" "20081038","Histology/Primary site: What is the correct histology code for sarcomatoid carcinoma of the mandible diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion.
","Left mandible resection: Malignant tumor, favor high grade sarcomatoid carcinoma. Please see comment.
Comment: Considering the focal stain with P63 and the consult from Mayo Clinic done on the previous biopsy, the diagnosis of sarcomatoid carcinoma is more likely.
Gross: left mandible resection...sectioning reveals a...mass that has replaced the majority of the mandibular bone and is at the medial, anterior lateral and posterior soft tissue margins and comes to within 2.4 cm of the anterior boney resection margin and 1.9 cm of the smooth articular temporal mandibular joint surface.
The combination of C411 and 8033/3 is impossible (with no override available).
","Code the primary site C031 [Mandibular gingiva]. Code the histology 8033 [sarcomatoid carcinoma]. This tumor originated in the mandibular gingiva and invaded the bone (mandible) -- It did not originate in the bone. This type of tumor does not originate in bone.
","2008" "20081037","Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?","","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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.
The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.
","2008" "20081036","MP/H Rules--Breast: Is inflammatory breast cancer always one primary per lifetime? Or is a subsequent inflammatory breast cancer a second primary if diagnosed more than five years later?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer more than five years after a previous diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer is a separate (new) primary. See rule M5 in the Breast Multiple Primary Rules.","2008" "20081035","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for a single tumor, micropapillary carcinoma with components of mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H16 and assign code 8522 [Duct and lobular carcinoma].
Micropapillary is specific duct type (see Table 1).
","2008" "20081034","Race, Ethnicity/Spanish Surname or Origin: Which Spanish Surname List (from 1980 census or 1990 census) would SEER prefer us to use to code 7 in Spanish Surname or Origin? See Discussion.","In the SEER coding manual, it refers to ""a list of Hispanic/Spanish names"" (5e), but does not specify which one to use. Again, for the Computed Ethnicity field, which Spanish Surname List does SEER prefer us to use?","Determine which list is better suited for your geographic area. If the 1990 list is used, determine the probability cut-off that seems most reasonable for your geographic area.","2008" "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.""
","2008" "20081032","Radiation Therapy--Breast: If hospital records indicate that a mammocyte intracavitary radiation therapy device was placed in the breast, but there is no follow-up documentation of radiation actually being given, should we code radiation 2 (implants) or 8 (recommended, unknown if given)?","","Assign code 8 [recommended, unknown if administered]. Check this case periodically, and others coded 8. Update if further information becomes available.","2008" "20081031","MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors:
#1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock).
#2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion.
","In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision.
To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3.
","2008" "20081029","Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: Multiple cavernous hemangiomas diagnosed in 1995 are treated with radiation and steroids in 1996. A 1999 MRI states there is no interval change with the lesions in selected location since 1995. How many new primaries should be reported if a 2006 MRI states there are additional cavernous hemangiomas in other parts of the brain? See Discussion.","7-03-97 PE: Past history significant for cavernous hemangiomas. Has had radiation and was on high-dose steroids in early 1996. Patient reports subsequent MRI done and neurologist gave ""clean bill of health.""
1-26-99 MRI BRAIN. Clinical information: history of intracranial cavernous hemangiomas. Comparison with prior brain MRI in 12/15/95. IMP: Upper medullary, right parieto-occipital, left frontal cavernous hemangiomas without interval change in size as compared to 12/15/95.
1-25-06 MRI BRAIN. Clinical info: history of prior radiation for cavernous angiomas. Comparison made with prior exam on 1/26/99. Impression: Multiple, variable sized cavernous angiomas within medulla, pontomedullary junction, midbrain, & cerebral hemispheres. Dominant lesion centered within posterior pontomedullary junction. FINDINGS: 8mm lesion in posterior pontomedullary junction. 2mm lesion within right paracentral portion of medulla. Several less than 5mm lesions noted within brain stem bilateral. Two, less than 1-2mm, areas within right inferior aspect of right and left cerebellar hemispheres. 1cm lesion centered within white matter within right posterior parietal/occipital region. Several small, less than 1-2mm, lesion within surrounding white matter. 3rd dominant lesion within left frontal lobe equal 6mm. Several 1-2mm foci of susceptibility artifact within subcortical white matter of high right and left cerebral hemispheres consistent with small cavernous angiomas.
","Benign and borderline brain and CNS tumors diagnosed January 1, 2004 and later are reportable. Multiple tumors in different brain and CNS sites are separate primaries. Different sites are those with ICD-O-3 topography codes that differ at the first, second, third or fourth character.
There are four reportable primaries in the scenario described above.
A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.
Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic.","2008" "20081025","MP/H Rules/Histology--Anus: What is the correct histology code and MP/H histology rule to use for AIN-3 arising in a polyp? See Discussion.","Patient has colonoscopy with excision of small 5mm polyp in rectum (no mention of anus or anal canal); path reads out: AIN-3 (anal intraepithelial neoplasm grade 3).
In coding the histology using the ""Other Sites"" rules, H2 would be the first rule that applies for this case. However, we lose the fact that the AIN-3 arose in a polyp (H3). Is this how SEER wants these cases coded?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H2 and assign histology code 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III). Apply the rules in order, H2 precedes H3.","2008" "20081024","CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is SSF6 coded when CS tumor size is coded from a clinical report, not from pathology? See Discussion.","A breast ultrasound displays a 2 cm tumor. Core biopsy diagnosis is lobular carcinoma in situ. No further record for patient. Tumor size coded to 020. Should SSF 6 be coded to 010 ""Entire tumor reported as in situ (no invasive component reported)"" because it was pathologically confirmed, or to 888 because size was coded based on a clinical exam - the ultrasound?","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 SSF6 888 [Clinical tumor size coded]. When the size recorded in CS Tumor Size is not determined pathologically, 888 must be coded in SSF6. Note: The code in SSF 6 pertains to pathologic tumor size. It describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded.
","2008" "20081023","Histology: Must every word in the ICD-O-3 code definition appear in the diagnosis in order to assign that ICD-O-3 code? See Discussion.","Is the diagnosis ""Acute myeloid leukemia, M2"" coded to Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation, FAB M2, NOS, (9874/3) or to Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS, (9861/3)?","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The general instructions for assigning histology codes are to code as precisely as possible. Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation is the definition of the FAB M2 category. A pathologist does not need to provide every word in the term associated with an ICD-O code; pathologists don't always talk that way. AML M2 is a very specific diagnosis and should be coded to 9874/3.
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.
","2008" "20081022","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Wilm's Tumor: Is the fact that a Wilm's tumor case is bilateral captured in the CS Extension field or is the CS Mets at Dx field coded to 40?","","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 laterality as bilateral, code the greatest extension from either side in CS extension.
Code CS Mets at diagnosis 00 [None] UNLESS true distant metastases were identified.
","2008" "20081021","Primary Site/Surgery of Other Site--Leukemia: If hairy cell leukemia is diagnosed at splenectomy, and 1 month later a bone marrow confirms the same diagnosis, is the primary site coded to spleen or bone marrow? If the site is bone marrow, is the splenectomy coded to 2 (regional) or 4 (distant) in the surgery field?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Primary site:
Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow] per primary site coding instructions for leukemia in the 2007 SEER manual, page 70.
Surgery of other site:
Since all surgical procedures for hematopoietic diseases are coded in the data item Surgery of Other Site, assign code 1 [Nonprimary surgical procedure performed].
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.
","2008" "20081019","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:
According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same primary.
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.
","2008" "20081018","CS Tumor Size: Is a 5.5 mm tumor coded as 005 or 006? See Discussion.","We interpret the CS Manual general instructions to indicate to ONLY round up to 001 when the tumor size is stated to be 0.1 to 0.9mm.","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 CS tumor size 006. Because only whole numbers in mm can be collected, basic mathematical principles are used for rounding; 1-4 round down, 5-9 round up.
","2008" "20081017","Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion.","The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be ""suspicious for malignancy."" The microscopic description states that the ""lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia."" Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a ""suspicious"" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.
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.
","2008" "20081016","Laterality--Brain and CNS: When a meningioma extends to both right and left sides, is laterality coded 4 for bilateral or 9 for midline? See Discussion.
","Operative Findings: Bilateral frontal craniotomies for excision of giant meningioma which extended onto optic chiasm.
Path: Bifrontal tumor, 6.5 cm meningotheliomatous meningioma.
","If it is not possible to determine whether the meningioma originated on the left or the right, assign code 4 [Bilateral involvement, lateral origin unknown; stated to be single primary].","2008" "20081015","MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion.
","After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are ""diagnosed"" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply.
","2008" "20081014","Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: How is transurethral microwave treatment coded for prostate primaries?","","Assign code 16 [Hyperthermia]. See the SEER Note on page C-747 of the 2007 SEER Manual:
Code Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy (TUMT) as 16.
","2008" "20081013","First course treatment--Prostate: If a patient has a prostatectomy and the margins are positive, then several months later radiation is given because the PSA levels never decreased or have risen, is the radiation coded as first course of treatment or subsequent treatment?
","","Record the radiation as first course of treatment even though it was delayed for several months.
Radiation is highly effective when there is a small or microscopic amount of tissue left at the margin following prostatectomy. In most regions, radiation therapy is the standard of care for positive margins at prostatectomy.
","2008" "20081011","Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion.","Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed.","Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.
CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].
Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].
The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery.
","2008" "20081009","Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as ""precancerous melanosis of the face"" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis?
","","This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1).
Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only].
Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit.
","2008" "20081008","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a re-excision follows a prior mastectomy?","","Code the most extensive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site. This is a cumulative field. Assign the appropriate code including all surgeries of the primary site performed during the first course of treatment.
The correct code for mastectomy followed by re-excision will depend on the extent of the re-excision. For example, if the re-excision removed muscle, code radical mastectomy.
","2008" "20081007","CS Extension--Lung: How is ""subpleural extension"" coded?","","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.Subpleural extension means that the tumor extends to the subpleural space, but the pleura itself is not involved. Assign the appropriate extension code based on the other facts for the case. Do not code pleural involvement.
","2008" "20081006","Multiplicity Counter: Is there a time frame for the Multiplicity Counter or is it related to the duration for counting new tumors (i.e. 5 years for breast, etc) to capture the number of ""local recurrences""?","","Record the number of tumors counted as a single primary at the time the case is abstracted. Later, if additional tumors are determined to be the same primary, update this field once. Do not update the multiplicity counter more than once.","2008" "20081005","Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for an ""anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture""? See Discussion.
","Scenario: Addendum from Mayo Clinic review, IHC and consultation made dx of ""anaplastic glioneuronal neoplasm with spongioblastic architecture"". The original micro states 'high grade glial neoplasm w/o characteristic features of glioblastoma multiforme in that it lacks areas of significant necrosis, no nuclear palisading nor endothelial vascular proliferation....""
","The best code available according to our pathologist consultant is 9505/3 [Ganglioglioma, anaplastic]. According to our consultant, while ganglioglioma is traditionally a benign tumor, anaplastic ganglioglioma is classified as malignant by WHO (page 103), and comes as close to fitting the description of this tumor as any other term.
","2008" "20081004","First course treatment/Histology--Lymphoma: What treatment, if any, is coded for a patient with methotrexate induced lymphoma when the treatment plan is to take the patient off methotrexate? Also, is there a specific histology for drug induced lymphoma? See Discussion.","Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma of soft palate & nasal septum, methotrexate induced, in 5/07. Patient was taken off methotrexate with complete resolution of disease. No other treatment was given. Patient was on methotrexate for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Treatment: Code the treatment fields to 00 [not done] in this case.
Document the discontinuation of methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis in a text field.
Histology: Assign code 9680/36 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, NOS]. There is no specific histology code for therapy-related lymphoma.
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.
","2008" "20081003","Reportability--Brain and CNS: For von Hippel Lindau disease with multiple hemagioblastomas, is each hemangioblastoma reportable as a new primary? See Discussion.","Diagnosis of von Hippel-Landau disease, multiple brain surgeries between 2002 and 2007 for recurring hemangioblastomas, 9161/1. This disease manifests as multiple (recurring) hemangioblastomas.","For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:
If the hemagioblastomas occur in sites with different ICD-O-3 topography codes, they are separate primaries.
Please note: Rule M4 in the Benign & Borderline Intracranial and CNS Tumors MP/H coding rules on the SEER website has been corrected to read:
Tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxx), third (Cxx) and/or fourth (Cxx) characters are multiple primaries.(http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/benign_brain.html)
","2008" "20081002","Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.","Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.
Could the same apply to the spleen?
","Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow.","2008" "20081001","CS Tumor Size: Can an 'ulcerated mass' be used to code CS tumor size? See Discussion.
","The CS Manual (p. 26, 4.a.) states do not code the size of the polyp, ulcer or cyst. However it states that a 'cystic mass' can be used to code TS if it is the only size given. Scopes Text: 'ulcerated' mass based at anal verge & ext 3-4 cm up into rectum.","
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.Do not code CS Tumor size using the size of an ulcerated mass.
Answer from:
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a ""C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor"" and is therefore not reportable?
","","Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
","2007" "20071131","Cell indicator--Lymphoma: If the primary site for a lymphoma is stated to be the lymph nodes but there is no biopsy of a lymph node, can the immunophenotype designation for a lymphoma be coded based on a bone marrow or liver biopsy indicating ""diffuse large B-cell lymphoma""?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
The cell indicator or immunophenotype designation for lymphomas may be coded from pathology reports on tissue from bone marrow or liver when there is no tissue from the primary site. Code information on cell type from any available source.
See the Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual, Coding Guidelines for Lymphomas, pages C-1055 to C-1056 for more information about coding this field for lymphomas.
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" "20071130","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are schwannomas of the spinal cord reportable when they are intradural? See Discussion.","The CNS guidelines basically indicate that schwannomas must all come from peripheral nerves and thus are not reportable when they are on the spinal cord. However, the COC Inquiry 18174 & 18068 states that schwannomas occasionally will develop inside the dura (intradural) on the spinal cord and would be reportable.","According to an expert consultant, schwannomas must be derived from Schwann cells which are not a part of the CNS. All schwannomas come from peripheral nerves. Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
Please see http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/training/index.htm for more information.
","2007" "20071129","Reportability/Histology: Is a case reportable if the Final Diagnosis in a pathology report indicates a non reportable diagnosis but the Diagnosis Comment on the same report indicates a non reportable diagnosis followed by a reportable diagnosis in parenthesis? See Discussion.
","08/13/2007 polypectomy final diagnosis: tubulovillous adenoma with severe epithelial atypia. Dx Comment (on same path) ...atypia including focal cribriform glandular architecture (carcinoma in situ).
","This case is reportable as carcinoma in situ. The histology code is 8263/2 [adenocarcinoma in situ in a tubulovillous adenoma].
According to our pathologist consultant, a ""comment"" in a path report is a part of the diagnosis - it often elaborates on or clarifies the diagnosis. Placing [carcinoma in situ] in the comment, even in parentheses, indicates that is the appropriate diagnosis for our purposes.
","2007" "20071128","MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.
Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.
","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" "20071125","Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only ""I-125 seeds"" to the prostate?","","Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.","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" "20071123","MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: ""Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule.""
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.
When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.
","2007" "20071122","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How is histology coded when the final pathology diagnosis is ""adenocarcinoma with extensive mucinous features"" and the percent of mucinous features is not stated?
","","Code 8140 using rule H6. Rule H6 applies because the percent of mucinous is not specified.
","2007" "20071120","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Should code 51 (Modified radical mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast) be used when a patient has excisional biopsy (22) and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy without removal of uninvolved contralateral breast (41) as part of the first course of treatment?","","Assign code 51 or 52 if a patient has an excisional biopsy and axillary dissection followed by a simple mastectomy during the first course of therapy. Code the cumulative result of the surgeries, which is a modified radical mastectomy in this case.
SEER collects only one surgery code per case. Code the most invasive, extensive or definitive surgery in Surgery of Primary Site.
","2007" "20071119","CS Eval/Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: When the only procedure performed is a polypectomy, if there is NO tumor at the margins, should CS TS/EXT-Eval be coded as 3 and the surgery coded as a polypectomy?","","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 eval code 3. A polypectomy with no tumor at the margin meets the criteria for pathologic staging.
Code polypectomy in Surgery of Primary site in this case.
","2007" "20071118","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.
","2007" "20071117","MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain: How many primaries are reported and what is the histology for a single brain tumor described as a low grade astrocytoma at the time of the initial partial resection and a low grade glioneuronal neoplasm at the time of the subsequent total resection? See Discussion.","On 4/20/07 a partial resection of a brain tumor is interpreted as low grade astrocytoma. Patient has a gross total resection on 8/13/07 with this diagnosis: low grade glioneuronal neoplasm (see comment). Comment: This case has been reviewed at ---. Dr. agrees with our interpretation (low grade glioneuronal neoplasm, possibly a dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor).","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary. A single tumor is always a single primary.
Assign histology code 9400/3 [Astrocytoma, low grade]. This diagnosis was not revised or amended based on the later surgery. It is possible that the malignant component was entirely removed during the first surgery.
","2007" "20071116","Behavior--Bladder: What behavior code is used for a TURB path specimen diagnosis of ""non-invasive urothelial carcinoma, no muscle found, depth of invasion cannot be assessed"" when the clinician stages the case as Ta? See Discussion.","The SEER site specific coding module for bladder says, ""If the only surgery performed is a TURB and if it is documented that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen, code the behavior as malignant and not in situ.""","Assign behavior code 2 [in situ] based on the physician's stage Ta.
When no other information is available and the TNM designation is not available, use the instructions on page C-844 in Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual as a default.
","2007" "20071115","CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How do you code the CS Tumor size and SSF6 fields for a breast cancer described as ""Paget disease with underlying intraductal carcinoma (4cm x 3.2cm)""?","","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.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
","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" "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" "20071110","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, page 47, states to determine whether the physician is using the term myelodysplasia to describe bone marrow marrow malfunction or a neoplasic syndrome in order to determine reportability. What do we do when there is no information one way or the other?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Without further information, the term ""myelodysplasia"" alone is not reportable. If a more definitive diagnosis is made later, the case may become reportable.
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" "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" "20071107","MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: If the pathologist and oncologist call a 2007 lobular carcinoma that appears in a skin nodule of a mastectomy scar a recurrence of a patient's 1975 primary breast duct carcinoma, should we abstract this as a new primary? See Discussion.
","According to the pathologist and oncologist, the change in histology is attributed to the present availability of E-cadherin, which was not available in 1975.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 diagnosis as a separate primary using rule M5.
Rule M5 applies to this case because it comes before rule M12. Furthermore, based on your statement, the answer presumes that the original tumor was duct carcinoma only, there was no lobular carcinoma present. This must be a new primary because there are two different histologies.
The 2007 MP/H rules were developed with input from clinicians. They advised that a subsequent breast tumor more than five years later is a new primary. It is important to apply the rules so that these cases are handled in a consistant manner across all registries.
","2007" "20071106","MP/H Rules--Bladder: Does rule M6 mean that any combination of tumors with the histologies 8050, 8120-8124, or 8130-8131 are the same primary regardless of the amount of time between tumor occurrences? See Discussion.
","Many interpret Rule M7 to mean when separate occurrences of TCC of the bladder are diagnosed more than 3 years apart, it is reportable as a second primary. However, doesn't Rule M6 mean that if the histology is any combination of 8050, 8120-8124 or 8130-8131 for tumors diagnosed more than 3 years apart, they are reported as a single primary?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Papillary, transitional cell and/or papillary transitional cell carcinomas of the bladder are a single primary using Rule M6. Rule M6 includes diagnoses within 3 years of each other AND diagnoses more than three years apart for the histologies listed. If rule M6 applies to your case, stop. Do not continue on to Rule M7.
","2007" "20071105","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma/Leukemia: How many primaries and what histologies are coded when a path diagnosis for a cervical/neck mass demonstrates classical Hodgkin's lymphoma on a background of chronic lymphocytic leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Hodgkin disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are separate primaries according to our current instructions. Abstract and code them separately.
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" "20071104","Reportability--Bladder: Is a ""high grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with focal superficial invasion into lamina propria"" reportable?
","","Yes, this case is reportable. It is invasive (invasion into the lamina propria).
According to the WHO Classification of Urinary System Tumours, ""Most pT1 cancers are papillary, low or high grade.""
","2007" "20071103","MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.
Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.
Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.
","2007" "20071102","Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy?","","Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy.","2007" "20071101","Multiplicity Counter/CS Tumor Size: The Multiplicity Counter rule 6c states ""Use code 99 when the tumor is described as diffuse"". Is code 99 used in all circumstances when tumor size is coded to 998? See Discussion.","The CS manual lists esophagus, stomach, familila/familial polyposis (colon), lung, and breast as the only circumstances when code 998 is valid. If this is correct, then if TS is coded to 998, then Multiplicity Counter must be 99.","If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If the number of tumors is not known, assign code 99. If ""diffuse"" is the only information available to describe the tumor, assign code 99.","2007" "20071100","Type of Multiple Tumors--Colon: How is this field coded for a case in which the patient is found to have two in situ polyps and an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp all in the same segment of the colon? See Discussion.","Code 30 would not count the fact that these are polyps. Code 31 states ""AND a frank adenocarcinoma."" What would be the correct code?","Assign code 30 [In situ and invasive] in this case. Code 31 does not apply here because frank adenocarcinoma is not present.","2007" "20071099","MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of ""pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components""? Please see discussion.
","Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: ""While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma.""
This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma.
""Components"" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5.
","2007" "20071098","Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion.","Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for 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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors
Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.
CS Tumor Size
Include information gathered through
WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.
","2007" "20071097","Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a thyroid cancer presenting as multiple foci? See Discussion.","Thyroidectomy showed papillary thyroid carcinoma. Path diagnosis: tumor focality: multifocal. Path described 3 foci of tumor on each side. The main tumor mass in right thyroid was 1.5 cm. Smaller foci of tumor ranged in size from .1 cm to 1.0 cm. Per guidelines, ""we still don't count foci as tumors for the purpose of these rules, even if there is more than one."" The 1 cm tumor was probably macroscopic in size. Do we count it in the multiplicity counter? Do we count only the 1.5 cm main tumor mass?","If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If foci are measured, include them in the multiplicity counter. If the only information available is ""multiple foci"" assign code 99.
For the case above, code 06 in the multiplicity counter (3 tumors on each side).
","2007" "20071096","Multiplicity Counter--Prostate: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer for which sextant needle biopsy cores on left and right sides are positive for adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.","Prostate cancer typically presents as multifocal diffuse disease. The coding exercise in the MPH rules presentations coded prostate cancer as one tumor.
Reference: SEER Training Web Casts - Other Sites Rules Practicum
","Code the number of tumors present if known. This information can be taken from any part of the record, including imaging and prostatectomy. If the only information available is ""diffuse,"" or ""multifocal,"" assign code 99. Do not assume there are multiple tumors just beacause there are multiple biopsies. When there is no information about the number of tumors, code Multiplicity Counter to 99 and Type of Multiple Tumors to 99.","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" "20071093","Reportability--Brain and CNS: In addition to Schwannoma, are there additional types of benign tumors that arise in peripheral nerves along the spinal cord that are not reportable? See Discussion.","Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma?
Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004
","Reportability depends on the location of the tumor. Tumors in the following sites are reportable:
Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
Please note: spinal schwannomas arising in the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
","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" "20071090","Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these data items coded for a single breast primary composed of both in situ and invasive disease when measurements are provided for both the invasive and in insitu components? See Discussion.","Breast cancer, invasive duct carcinoma with DCIS, 1.3 cm, DCIS 3.7 cm. ""The in situ carcinoma is very extensive in this lumpectomy. It is present contiguously from sides 1A through 1L sparing only the final 8 mm of medial margin. In situ and invasive carcinoma are prominently present along almost the entire superior margin."" Is the mult counter 02 with Type of mult tumor 30, or one tumor?","Because there are individual measurements for each of these tumors, code the multiplicity counter 02 [Two tumors present]. Code Type of Multiple Tumor as 30 [In situ and invasive].","2007" "20071089","CS Extension--Ovary: Are ""non-invasive implants"" identified per pathology coded differently than ""invasive implants""?","","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.No, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary.
","2007" "20071088","Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.","The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
","The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.","2007" "20071087","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion.","Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries in this case.
Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.
Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.
","2007" "20071086","Histology--Pancreas: How is a ""gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm"" coded that has lymph node metastasis?","","The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].
Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.
","2007" "20071085","CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?","","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 prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.
CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.
","2007" "20071084","MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: How is an ""acinar adenocarcinoma with focal large duct adenocarcinoma"" coded?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
As long as this is NOT urothelial carcinoma extending to the prostatic ducts, code histology to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma] using rule H10.
Do not code histologies designated as ""focal.""
","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" "20071082","MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a ""recurrence"" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?
","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement ""recurrence"" from the medical record to make this decision.
When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate ""single primary,"" the tumor being evaluated is a ""recurrence"" of the original primary cancer.
","2007" "20071081","CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?","","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.Record the IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.
","2007" "20071080","First Course Treatment--Liver: Given that agents can be used that are not chemotherapy drugs, how should treatment be coded for a procedure called a ""chemoembolization"" when the agent used is not documented?","","This issue was discussed among the national standard setters and per the SEER website this issue has been resolved as follows: When ""chemoembolization"" is done but the agents used are not chemotherapy drugs, then treatment should be coded as ""Other Therapy."" See http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/codingmanuals/embolization.html","2007" "20071079","MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Breast: Do we use a pathologists comment of ""recurrent ductal carcinoma"" found in the pathology report for a new specimen to determine whether the new specimen actually represents a new primary or recurrent disease? See Discussion.","The patient had a left breast cancer LIQ, ductal with DCIS. Nodes (-) diagnosed in 1998
Treatment: Lumpectomy-clear margins
Refused radiation
Hormone therapy: Tamoxifen
Present: June 2007
Left breast-invasive ductal ca, UOQ
Pathology report comments: Recurrent ductal ca.
Left axillary nodes (+)
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply the 2007 MP/H breast rules. Go to the multiple tumors module and begin with rule M4. Stop at rule M5: tumors diagnosed more than 5 years apart are multiple primaries.
The only time you can accept a pathologist's statement of recurrence is when the statement is made based on a review of the slides from the previous diagnosis compared to the slides from the current diagnosis.
","2007" "20071078","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/CS Reg LN Pos/Exam: How are these fields coded if the operative report does not mention a separate lymph node procedure at the time of the surgery to the primary site? See Discussion.","LUL lobectomy: 1.7 cm apical tumor, diagnosis: moderately well differentiated subpleural squamous cell carcinoma, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
","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 the Scope of Regional LN Surgery, Regional Nodes Positive and Regional Nodes Examined fields using the available information on the case. The lymph nodes can be obtained or biopsied during any procedure within the first course of treatment. A separate lymph node surgery is not required to complete these data items.
","2007" "20071077","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: How many primaries should be reported and how is the histology field(s) coded if the left colon contains two adenocarcinomas and one mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma and each has a different level of invasion? See Discussion.","A patient had three tumors in the left colon including an 1) invasive well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in tubulovillous adenoma with pericolonic subserosal fat invasion 8.5cm, 2) An infiltrative moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria 4cm and 3) an invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria, 1/69 nodes positive. The case was coded using rule M8 for one primary, but M10 contradicts; and H13 coding rule for histology 8263/3.","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assuming that all tumors are in the left colon, there are three tumors:
Multiple Primary Determination
In the colon MP rules go to the multiple tumors module. Start with M3. Stop at M7 and abstract as a single primary.
Histology Code
Go to the histology coding rules, multiple tumors module, and start with H15. Stop at H20 which tells you to code the most invasive tumor. Tumor 1 is the most invasive according to the definition of most invasive in the 2007 SEER Manual, page C-271. Code 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
","2007" "20071076","MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Regarding rule H15, is the mixed code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] used when there are subtypes of these histologies described, such as a tumor diagnosed with follicular and papillary microcarcinoma or should 8341 [Papillary microcarcinoma] be used?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For coding purposes, this is a papillary and follicular combination that would be coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant].
For thyroid cancer only, the term micropapillary does not refer to a specific histologic type. It means that the papillary portion of the tumor is minimal or occult, usually less than 1 cm. in diameter.
","2007" "20071075","Flag: For cases diagnosed prior to 2001, how is the ICD-O-3 Conversion Flag set if the ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 histology and behavior fields are both directly coded, as registrars in this region are instructed to do when submitting late cases, and as a result no conversion is necessary? Is it to 0 [Morphology (Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-3 originally coded in ICD-O-3)] or Blank [Not converted]?","","Assign code 3 [converted with review].
In your scenario above, ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 are being independently coded which should yield the same result as converting the case and then reviewing it.
Otherwise, if there is an ICD-O-3 code which differs from the ICD-O-3 code based on the conversion criteria, it will trigger an edit.
","2007" "20071074","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an ""adenocarcinoma"" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of ""bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma"" in the same lung? See Discussion.","In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].
Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis?
Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries.
","2007" "20071073","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion.","A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features.
The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct?
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma].
After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523.
This advanced concept of a ""second pass"" through the rules is discussed in an online web training session called ""Beyond the basics."" Go to the SEER website to view this session http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_advanced.html
","2007" "20071072","Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.","Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.","The purpose of the data item ""Ambiguous Terminology"" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].","2007" "20071071","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: If the biopsy for a lung primary is actually taken from a pleural mass, can the default rule ""when there are several lung masses and only one lesion is biopsied, consider this a single primary"" apply? See Discussion.
","Scenario: A parenchymal lesion in each lung. One lung also has a pleural lesion. MD biopsies the pleural mass only and it is positive for cancer.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not assume the biopsy of the pleural mass is a biopsy of the lung. Apply the 2007 MP/H Lung rules to the lung tumors only. For this case, the pleural lesion would be a metastasis (outside the lung). The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic lesions.
The 2007 MP/H Lung rules do not apply to pleura as a primary site. If the pleural lesion is primary, it should be abstracted as a separate primary.
","2007" "20071070","CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.","Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.
","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 CS Tumor Size as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.
Use the data items ""Multiplicity Counter"" and ""Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary"" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.
","2007" "20071069","First Course Treatment--Melanoma: How and where is the excision for an in-transit metastasis coded if the in-transit metastasis is coded in CS Lymph Nodes? See Discussion.","Excision of skin of scalp nodule reveals in transit metastasis of melanoma. Patient also has lung metastasis and begins systemic treatment. No primary tumor identified.","Code the excision in Surgical Procedure of Other Site because no primary tumor was identified.","2007" "20071068","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.","Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.
Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.
Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for ""adenosarcoma"". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?
","For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.
This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.
","2007" "20071067","CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is the histology coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ] or to 8130/2 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, non-invasive] for a 2006 bladder tumor with a final path diagnosis of ""mixed non-invasive papillary TCC and flat carcinoma in-situ"" and is CS Extension coded to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma state to be noninvasive]or to 06 [Carcinoma in situ]? See Discussion.","If the correct code for histology is 8130/2 and CS Extension is 06, this combination does not pass NAACCR edits.","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.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, code CS Extension to 06 and histology to 8130/2. Override the NAACCR edit.
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.
","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" "20071065","MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?","","For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:
No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.
Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.
","2007" "20071064","Reportability--Breast: Is a final path diagnosis of ""phyllodes tumor, borderline (malignant, low grade)"" reportable if the comment states ""Features favor the diagnosis of a borderline phyllodes tumor (or also called malignant phyllodes tumor of low grade)""?
","","No, borderline phyllodes tumors (PT) are not reportable. The ICD-O-3 code is 9020/1. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, borderline PT's are also called low grade malignant PT's.
","2007" "20071063","Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 2010
The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.
A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
","2007" "20071062","Primary Site: For malignant gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs), how should the primary site be coded and which Collaborative Stage and TNM staging schemes should be used for disease found in the stomach, small intestine or other locations?","","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 the primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].
GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.
In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.
","2007" "20071061","Histology--Melanoma: How is a ""malignant melanoma arising in a melanocytic nevus"" coded?","","The histology code is 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS].
There is no specific code for melanoma arising in melanocytic nevus. According to our pathologist consultant, this is likely because nevi are so common, melanoma arising in association with them is common and appears to have no bearing on prognosis or treatment. Most pathologists do not include the nevus in the diagnosis of melanoma, even when they see it.
Code melanomas arising in melanocytic nevi to the appropriate melanoma code, probably 8720, 8721, or 8743 in most cases.
","2007" "20071060","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of ""... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change"" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase ""... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified""?
","","The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
","2007" "20071059","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Given that the CS Manual instruction is to code the highest PSA value recorded in the medical record, can a PSA value obtained a year prior to admission be used to code the SSF 1 and SSF2 fields?","","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 PSA recorded in CS SSF 1 and 2 must be documented in the medical record. Record the highest PSA value prior to diagnostic biopsy or treatment. If the highest PSA value documented in the medical record is from the previous year, record it.
","2007" "20071058","CS Tumor Size: Is a measured ""area"" equivalent to a tumor, mass or lesion size? See Discussion.
","Collaborative Stage manual, page 26
Rule 4a: ""always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis.""
Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm.
","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.In general, a measured area is not equivalent to a tumor size.
Do not apply the rule related to the breast example to other primary sites. This example in the CS manual pertains to coding tumor size for breast primaries when the size of the invasive component is not stated. In the example, the area involved with duct carcinoma in situ is the only measurement available. The size of the invasive component was not given.
","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" "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" "20071054","Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase ""suspicious for a primary lung tumor"" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.","Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?","Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement ""suspicious for a primary tumor"" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
","2007" "20071053","Grade, Differentiation: How is grade coded for cases using the FNCLCC (Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Ie Cancer) system? See Discussion.","Is FNCLCC a recognized system in the United States? Tongue was the primary site for the case we saw that used FNCLCC.","Do not code the data item Grade based on the FNCLCC grade. You may record the FNCLCC grade in a text field.","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" "20071051","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: Please clarify the multiple primary rule M6 and the explanatory note that states when there is a single tumor in each lung, they are to be reported as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastasis. See Discussion.","Single tumor in left lung, single tumor in right lung. The rules take you to M6. Suppose the tumor in left lung is biopsied and there is a physician statement that right lung tumor is metastatic from left lung tumor. The note under M6 is ""When there is a single tumor in each lung, abstract as multiple primaries unless stated or proven to be metastatic."" In this case, is it a single primary or multiple primaries?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
When there is a single tumor in one lung and a single tumor in the other lung, apply rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries. Use this rule whenever there is a single tumor in each lung, even when neither tumor is biopsied or resected.
This rule is unique to lung. Our physician advisors emphasized that it is very unlikely that a single tumor in one lung could be metastatic from a single tumor in the opposite lung. Therefore, the default is to abstract as multiple primaries.
The note at M6 means that there must be proof that one tumor is metastatic in order to abstract as a single primary. For example, a biopsy of the tumor proving that it is metastatic. An opinion or belief that one tumor is metastatic is not sufficient. In the absence of proof, use rule M6 and abstract as multiple primaries.
A list of MP/H clarifications will be available. This issue will be included on the list.
","2007" "20071050","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.
Example:
Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].
","2007" "20071049","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.
This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.
","2007" "20071048","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a ""final diagnosis"" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol.","2007" "20071047","Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term ""accession"" rather than ""abstract""?","","The purpose of the new data item ""Ambiguous Terminology"" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it.","2007" "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" "20071045","Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a ""conclusive term"" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion.","Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.","The definition for code 2 should be ""More than 60 days"" after the date of diagnosis.
Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.
This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.
","2007" "20071044","Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field?
","","There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.
The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item ""Ambiguous terminology."" Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in ""Date of Conclusive Terminology.""
","2007" "20071043","Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?","","If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.","2007" "20071042","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion.","Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).
The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries.","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" "20071040","MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.","Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:
in situ following an invasive,
invasive following an in situ,
in situ following an in situ,
or invasive following an invasive
are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.
","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.
This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.
","2007" "20071039","Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: If an initial bone marrow diagnosis is ""...more compatible with CMML/MPD"" and within three months the final diagnosis per the oncologist is ""MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation,"" is histology coded to CMML or AML? See Discussion.","09/06 BM Bx elsewhere was ""compatible with MDS but more compatible with CMML/MPD"" per MD notes.
10/06 BM Bx ""...poor prognosis MDS, best classified as RAEB-2""
11/06 BM Bx ""myeloproliferative CMML with leukemic transformation""
(on evaluation for BMT)
12/12/06 Pt was admitted with rapidly progressive disease & was started on chemo to try to get into remission for BMT. Final dx by oncologist is ""MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation"".
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code CMML for this case. Code the histology at initial diagnosis. This patient had rapid progression, but the initial diagnosis was ""more compatible with CMML/MPD.""
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" "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" "20071037","CS Extension--Breast: Is the term ""erosion"" the same as ""ulceration""?","","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.
""Erosion"" is not synonymous with ""ulceration"" when coding CS extension for breast.
","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" "20071035","CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.","Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.
Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided ""nodule"" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?
","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 CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.
Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.
","2007" "20071034","Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of ""serous carcinoma"" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?","","Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the ""impossible"" site / histology combinations.","2007" "20071031","Histology--Lymphoma: How is a ""lymphocytic lymphoma of follicular center cell origin"" coded?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9690 [Follicular lymphoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Lymphoid tumors, follicular lymphoma is a neoplasm of follicle center B cells which has at least a partially follicular pattern.
Assign code 9695 for follicular lymphoma grade 1, 9691 for follicular lymphoma grade 2, and 9698 for follicular lymphoma grade 3.
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" "20071030","Reporting Source: If the only patient record available for a physician office biopsy is the pathology report identified from a freestanding laboratory, is reporting source coded to 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)] or 4 [Physicians office/Private Medical Practitioner (LMD)]? See Discussion.","A case was identified through a pathology report from a freestanding lab. The doctor who submitted the specimen left the state. His records cannot be located. Because the patient had the specimen removed at a physician's office, not at a path lab, is Type of Reporting Source field coded to the physicians office?","Reporting Source is the source that provided the best information used to abstract the case.
For this case, assign code 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)]. Reporting source should reflect the lab where this case was identified. The MD office added nothing to the case, not even a confirmation of malignancy.
","2007" "20071029","CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion.","The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.","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 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.
Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.
","2007" "20071028","MP/H Rules--Lung: Why the term ""nodule"" is not included as an equivalent term along with tumor, mass, lesion and neoplasm in the 2007 lung multiple primary rules?","","Answer revised July 2008
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word ""Nodule"" can be used interchageably with ""Tumor,"" ""Mass,"" ""Lesion"" and ""Neoplasm."" HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.
This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.
","2007" "20071027","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which report and diagnosis should be used to code the histology if an excisional biopsy that removes the majority of the tumor has a diagnosis of ""carcinoma,"" and the subsequent lumpectomy diagnosis is ""microscopic residual disease consistent with infiltrating duct carcinoma""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology for this case to 8010 [carcinoma]. The histology is coded from the pathology report with the most representative specimen (the most tumor tissue) even when the most representative specimen has a less specific histology.","2007" "20071026","MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: When the microscopic description indicates a colon tumor is ""tubulovillous,"" but the final diagnosis only states ""adenocarcinoma,"" is the histology coded to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that ""other parts of the pathology report"" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.
","2007" "20071025","Radiation Therapy: How is radiation coded when it is ""recommended"" but the patient dies before radiation is started? See Discussion.","Code 0 seems appropriate but then we would lose the fact that it had been recommended. All of the other modalities give an option for 'recommended but patient died prior to treatment.' Is there a reason this option is not given for radiation?","Code Radiation (Rx Summ--Radiation) to 0 [None; diagnosed at autopsy].
SEER does not collect the Reason For No Radiation field. However, those who abstract using software that captures this data item can identify these cases. Code 5 [radiation not administered because patient died] reflects this situation.
Radiation (Rx Summ-Radiation) is a SEER field. This field is derived from the data collected in Rad-Boost Rx Modality and Rad-Regional TX Modality. These fields do not include a choice for ""radiation not given because the patient died prior to treatment."" Therefore, this information cannot be coded in the Radiation field.
","2007" "20071023","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.
","2007" "20071022","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a ""small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia""? See Discussion.","Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.
Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?
Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.
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" "20071020","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.
","2007" "20071019","CS Lymph Nodes--Melanoma: If the primary site is coded to C449 because no primary skin lesion is identified for a melanoma case, are any positive lymph nodes assumed to be regional?","","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 the CS Lymph Nodes field to 80 [Lymph Nodes, NOS].
Although it is in the CS LN field, use the code for Lymph Nodes, NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED when you don't know whether the nodes are regional or distant. There are separate codes to use when you definitely know that the nodes are regional.
","2007" "20071018","Reportability: Is a ""goblet cell carcinoid"" of the appendix reportable?","","Yes, goblet cell carcinoid of the appendix is reportable. The ICD-O-3 code for goblet cell carcinoid is 8243/3.","2007" "20071017","CS Extension--Prostate: Can the phrase ""hard, fixed prostate"" be interpreted as clinical extracapsular extension and coded to 50 [extension or fixation to other structures]? See Discussion.","Patient had a ""hard, fixed prostate"" with needle core bx positive for Gleason grade 4+5=9 adenocarcinoma extensively involving gland. PSA was 87.5. Lymphadenectomy showed 3 positive pelvic/obturator lymph nodes. No prostatectomy was done and no physician TNM staging documented.
Do we need a specific clinical description of other organs to which the prostate is fixed in order to code CS Clinical Extension 50, or does the statement ""hard, fixed prostate"" qualify? If not, how would we code extension for this seemingly advanced cancer?
","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 extension code 50 [extension or fixation to adjacent structures] based on the term ""fixed."" Fixation to a particular structure(s) does not have to be specified in order to use code 50.
Do not use the statement ""hard"" to determine CS extension.
","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:
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" "20071015","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes?","","This question was answered by the CoC:
Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0.
","2007" "20071012","Reportability--Melanoma: Is a skin excision final diagnosis of ""melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential"" reportable if the path COMMENT states the initial shave biopsy diagnosis was ""melanocytic tumor with uncertain malignant potential [minimal deviation melanoma]""? See Discussion.","SKIN, RIGHT FOOT, EXCISION: CHRONIC SCARIFICATION WITH RESIDUAL ATYPICAL MELANOCYTES IN THE DERMIS IDENTIFIED, BUT COMPLETELY EXCISED.
Comment: The prior outside biopsy report indicates that the lesion was a melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (minimal deviation melanoma) measuring at least 2.5 mm in depth. There was apparently no in situ component. Special stains performed here are similar, with positive reactivity for Melan A and S-100. The cells are atypical, but there are reactive changes, making it impossible to accurately assess the true nature of the lesion in this biopsy. If this is a minimal deviation melanoma, it would be classified as a T3 (T3a since there is no description in the outside report of ulceration) lesion. The atypical melanocytes extend to a depth of 1.1 mm in this 2 mm deep biopsy, but are completely excised, both at the deep margin and at all of the peripheral margins (closest margin is superior, with clearance of 7 mm).
PATH FROM INITIAL BIOPSY: Diagnosis: Rt dorsal foot, shave biopsy: Melanocytic tumor of uncertain malignant potential (see comment). Tumor depth at least 2.5mm Deep margin involved. Comment: As a primary lesion, I would favor that this represents a melanocytic tumor with indeterminate biologic potential also known as minimal deviation melanoma. The lesion does extend to the deep margin and wider excision is recommended.
","This case is not reportable. Based on the information provided, there is no definitive diagnosis of malignancy.","2007" "20071011","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast ""re-excisions"" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of ""recurrence""? See Discussion.","Right Breast
06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.
09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.
10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS
Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.
Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of ""recurrence""? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.
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.
","2007" "20071010","MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: While cases of ""acinar adenocarcinoma"" of the prostate are required to be abstracted with the histology code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] for cases diagnosed 1/1/07 or later, can 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/07? See Discussion.","The SEER Multiple Primary and Histology manual, effective with 2007 forward diagnosis dates, indicates that this histology should be coded to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Does this contradict ICD-O-3? Can acinar adenocarcinoma be coded for other primary sites?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate as 8140/3.
Prior to diagnosis year 2007, code 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] may be used for prostate cases and for acinar adenocarcinoma of other sites, such as pancreas.
","2007" "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" "20071008","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is ""invasive lobular carcinoma with signet ring cell features (95%) and ductal features (5%)"" coded for a single tumor diagnosed prior to 2007?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists
For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.
","2007" "20071007","MP/H Rules/Histology: In the absence of a tissue diagnosis, should the histology field be coded based on the findings of a suspicious cytology or a CT scan that clinically confirmed the diagnosis? See Discussion.","Cytology (brushings at ERCP) which are highly suspicious of adenocarcinoma. A CT of the abdomen performed the next day shows a mass, most likely Klatskin tumor. Can the histology be coded to Klatskin tumor [8162/3] based on the CT findings?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology to 8162/3 [Klatskin tumor] using the histology from the CT. This case is confirmed clinically based on the CT. It cannot be accessioned based on suspicious cytology.
Rule H8 in the 2007 Histology Coding Rules for Other Sites provides instructions for coding histology when the pathology report and cytology report are not available.
","2007" "20071006","Primary Site: Is an ""angiosarcoma"" stated as arising in the skin of the breast and treated with a mastectomy, coded to the primary site of skin or breast?","","Code the primary site as skin of breast when skin of breast is documented as the site of origin.
According to the WHO classification of soft tissue tumors, the majority of angiosarcomas ""develop as cutaneous tumors...less than one quarter present as a deep soft tissue mass.""
","2007" "20071005","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
","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" "20071001","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).
","2007" "20061146","Primary Site--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are there any guidelines for the use of topography code C420 [blood] rather than C421 [bone marrow], or C424 [Hematopoietic system, NOS] for hematopoietic diseases other than Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are no specific guidelines concerning code C420 versus C421 or C424, other than the suggested topography codes in ICD-O-3 (see Rule H). The Hematopoietic task force is in the early phases of developing guidelines for these diseases. This issue will be presented to the task force for their consideration.
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.
","2006" "20061145","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.
","2006" "20061144","Date of Diagnosis/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are these fields coded if a 3/17/03 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of ""malignant proliferative disorder"" is subsequently confirmed to be a ""low grade lymphoma"" per a bone marrow biopsy in early 2006? See Discussion.","3-17-03: Bone marrow biopsy from rt iliac crest: Hypercellular marrow (90%) with extensive involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder (see description). Micro: The bone marrow is diffusely (>90%) involved by a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder. This consists of small lymphocytes,histiocytes, and large atypical cells with prominent nucleoli.
12-22-05 Extensive bone marrow involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder, bone biopsy from femur.
1-27-06 Hem/Onc Physician Note:
following pt for a lymphoproliferative disorder. ...bone marrow biopsy 2003, suggestive of, but not truly diagnostic, a lymphoproliferative disorder. Therefore, I elected not to do anything, but just follow her.
3-23-06 Hem/Onc Note:
pt with a history of an apparently low-grade lymphoma involving the marrow, as well as, I believe, the liver and recently pathologically diagnosed as a T-cell-rich B-cell lymphoma. ...followed in the past by Dr. ___ and has never actually had any treatment for this lymphoma, although it is documented even three years ago by bone marrow biopsy.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the diagnosis date to 3/17/03. The histology code is 9970/3 [Malignant myeloproliferative disorder]. The bone marrow biopsy confirms a ""Malignant"" lymphoproliferative disorder. Apply ICD-O-3 rule F and assign /3 to histology code 9970.
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.
","2006" "20061142","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: How many cases are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded for cases in which a fibrosarcoma arises in or transforms from a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans? See Discussion.","1. If the fibrosarcoma occurs after DFP, and is called metastatic, is it a recurrence or is it a new primary? Example: Pt diagnosed in 7/05 with a high grade fibrosarcoma arising in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The path indicated ""The presence of high grade fibrosarcoma, the extent of the tumor necrosis and the mitotic rate are all adverse prognostic findings that indicate a significant risk for mets."" The patient had a recurrence in 8/06 called a low grade fibrosarcoma mets from prev."" The DFP code is 8832/3 and a fibrosarcoma code is 8810/3. Our pathologist feels that the fibrosarcoma is a more aggressive tumor so should the case be coded to the 8810/3.
2. If DFSP has areas of fibrosarcoma, should it be coded to the latter because it is more aggressive? Example: Skin and subcutaneous tissue reads: Low grade sarcoma - tumor extends to margin. Comment: ""Although the predominant pattern of this tumor is consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, focal presence of hypercellularity and increased mitotic figures suggest transformation to Grade I fibrosarcoma. This progression, although focal, carries an increased risk of mets over classic DFSP. Code to 8810/31?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8832/3 [Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans] for both cases. DFSP with transformation to fibrosarcoma and DFSP with areas of fibrosarcoma are coded to 8832/3.
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.
","2006" "20061141","Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis ""a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells"" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion.","Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.
Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:
Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.
Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.
Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.
COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future.
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.
","2006" "20061140","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Corpus uteri: Is a microscopic metastasis in a cul-de-sac implant more appropriately reflected in the CS Extension field code 80 [Further contiguous extension; cul-de-sac] or in the CS Mets at Dx field code 40 [Distant metastasis]?","","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 80 [Further contiguous extension; Cul de sac] for CS extension in this case. Endometrium and ovary are exceptions to the rules that only contiguous extension is coded in Extension code 80. Only true distant metastases are coded in Mets at Dx.
","2006" "20061139","CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: Do modifying terms such as ""borderline"" affect whether lymph nodes are coded as involved when they are used in conjunction with the descriptors listed in Note 2 (i.e., mass, adenopathy or enlargement) for lung primaries? See Discussion.","Lung primary: CT states ""borderline"" enlarged hilar lymph nodes. Note 2 in the Lung schema under CS Lymph Nodes does not address qualifiers.","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.
Do not code the hilar lymph nodes as involved in this case. ""Borderline"" enlarged hilar lymph nodes do not meet the clinical criteria for enlargement.
","2006" "20061138","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded when a nipple biopsy demonstrates Paget disease and a separate biopsy in the same breast demonstrates inflammatory breast carcinoma? See Discussion.","Should Paget disease be coded as the histology because it has a higher histology code than inflammatory carcinoma?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the inflammatory carcinoma as one primary and the Paget disease as a separate primary. The first three digits of the histology codes for these histologies are different (8530 and 8540). Therefore, these are separate primaries.
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.
","2006" "20061137","Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term ""grade 0"" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of ""grade 0 immature teratoma"" impact reportability?
","","Regarding the term ""grade 0"" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
","2006" "20061136","Primary Site: What site code best reflects the final diagnosis of a metastatic ""pancreatobiliary"" adenocarcinoma to the liver? See Discussion.
","CT showed multiple masses in the liver and lymphadenopathy in areas of gastrohepatic ligament, celiac axis, superior mesenteric and left periaortic regions. No mention of a mass in pancreas or common duct. When the term ""pancreatobiliary"" primary is stated in the final diagnosis, what site code should be used?
","Contact the physician for clarification of the term ""pancreatobiliary."" If no further information can be obtained for this case, assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS] based on the CT findings for the specific case in this question.
When the primary is described as ""pancreatobiliary"" with NO FURTHER INFORMATION, assign C269.
","2006" "20061135","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a ""refractory cytopenia with excess blasts"" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).
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.
","2006" "20061134","Reportability: Is an AIN III that arises in perianal skin, skin tags or condyloma acuminatum reportable or must an AIN III arise in the anus or anal canal in order to be reportable?","","AIN III arising in perianal skin [C445] is not reportable.
AIN III [8077/2] of the anus or anal canal is reportable.
","2006" "20061133","Terminology, NOS--Melanoma: Is a diagnosis of melanoma ""with associated intradermal nevus"" coded the same as a melanoma ""arising in a nevus""?","","Yes, melanoma ""associated with"" a nevus and melanoma ""arising in"" a nevus are synonymous.","2006" "20061131","CS Lymph Node Examined--Lung: How is this field coded when a mediastinoscopy and lobectomy are performed and the pathology report indicates multiple lymph node fragments were removed as biopsy specimens and the lobectomy specimen revealed 3 interlobar lymph nodes?","","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 the CS Lymph Node Examined field to 98 [number unknown] because the biopsy information is not clear and as a result you do not know how many lymph nodes were examined.
","2006" "20061130","CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion.","CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, ""ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor."" Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, ""most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element."" For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?","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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.
The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.
","2006" "20061129","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion.","Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.
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.
","2006" "20061128","Marital Status: Is marital status coded to 2 [married] if the patient is legally married to a same-sex spouse (e.g., patient has a Canadian spouse and in Canada, same-sex marriages are legal)?","","Code marital status for same-sex persons based on the legal status. For the case example above, assign code 2 [married].","2006" "20061127","CS Lymph Nodes--Esophagus: Is a resected positive ""periesophageal nodule"" coded as an involved lymph node for an esophagus primary? See Discussion.","Per SINQ 20000846: Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node. SINQ 2000846 applied to EOD. Can this concept be used for Collaborative Stage?","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.
For cases diagnosed on or after January 1, 2004:
Search for additional information on the ""nodule."" Review the gross and microscopic descriptions to determine whether or not the nodule is a lymph node. If it is not possible to obtain further information, apply the downstaging rule and select the Extension or LN code that results in the lower category.
","2006" "20061126","Histology--Leukemia: How is a ""plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia/lymphoma"" coded when it is discovered on a bone marrow biopsy for a patient who presented with multiple enlarged lymph nodes and the discharge diagnosis was Type 2 plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
The best code currently available for this entity is 9727/3 [precursor cell lymphoblastic leukemia].
The WHO classification refers to this as ""Blastic NK-cell lymphoma."" The 2005 WHO-EORTC classification for cutaneous lymphomas states that blastic NK-cell lymphoma may be derived from a plasmacytoid dendritic cell precursor. They suggest more appropriate terms for this condition may be ""CD4+/CD56+ hematodermic neoplasm,"" and ""early plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia/lymphoma."" According to WHO, this is a rare form of lymphoma.
Willemze, et al. WHO-EORTC classification for cutaneous lymphomas. Blood, 15 May 2005. Volume 105, Number 10.
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.
","2006" "20061125","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.
","2006" "20061124","Reportability: Is a tumor reported as ""neoplasm"" or ""neoplasia"" per the pathology report, which is subsequently clinically referred to as ""carcinoma"" reportable? See Discussion.
","Example 1: Lung-Wedge resection and subsequent left lower lobe lobectomy showed papillary epithelial neoplasia. Tumor board and subsequent reports state ""nonsmall cell carcinoma of lung.""
Example 2: Kidney-Partial nephrectomy showed epithelial neoplasm, clear cells with low grade cytology. Subsequent urology clinic notes state that path revealed clear cell renal carcinoma.
2004 SEER manual states that ""cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case."" Do we also accession the case if primary site has been resected? Would diagnostic confirmation be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)?
","Accession the case and code Diagnostic Confirmation as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Accession a case with negative pathology when the clinician is aware of the negative pathology and continues to refer to the case as malignant.
","2006" "20061123","Reportability--Colon: Is a pathologically confirmed ""tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia"" reportable if clinical diagnosis at the time of the subsequent re-biopsy states ""follow-up for colon polyps with ca in situ""? See Discussion.","SINQ 20000245 states that high grade dysplasia is not synonymous with behavior code 2 (in situ). However, the 2004 SEER manual states that ""cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case.""","A pathologic diagnosis has priority over a clinical diagnosis. According to the pathologist, this case is not reportable. A re-biopsy is not treatment.","2006" "20061122","CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck (Parotid): What code is used to represent a positive intraparotid or a periparotid lymph node for a parotid primary? See Discussion.","The CS scheme for parotid places intraparotid lymph nodes under code 10 as well as code 12. Periparotid lymph nodes are included under code 12. Should both intraparotid and periparotid lymph nodes be included under code 10 only?
For head and neck sites, several lymph node groups fall into the ""Other groups"" category. They are not included in the level I-VII groups. In the coding schemes for most (but not all) of the head and neck sites, the ""other groups"" category includes intraparotid and periparotid lymph nodes and is coded 12 (or 52).
","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 10 for a single positive intraparotid or periparotid lymph node. If multiple nodes are involved, assign the appropriate code from the 20 series.
A recent revision to the CS lymph nodes scheme for parotid places both intraparotid and periparotid lymph nodes under code 10. Please see the August 21, 2006 update to the CS staging manual.
http://www.cancerstaging.org/cstage/cshtml.
","2006" "20061120","Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Should a TURB be coded to 27 [Excisional biopsy; SEER Note: Code TURB as 27] when there is obvious extravesicular extension demonstrated because the 2004 SEER Manual states ""Do not code an excisional biopsy when there is macroscopic residual disease""?","","Assign code 27 [excisional biopsy]. The site-specific instructions have priority over the general instructions. According to the instructions for coding surgery of the bladder, use code 27 for TURB.","2006" "20061119","Reportability--Breast: Is a biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma of the breast nipple reportable if a subsequent areolar resection shows foreign body granulomatous reaction to suture material and no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis?","","Yes, this case is reportable. The primary site is C500 [nipple]. There was a diagnosis of malignancy on 2/15/06: ""Positive for malignancy."" Even though no residual malignancy was found in the later specimen, that does not disprove the malignancy diagnosed on 2/15/06.","2006" "20061118","Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant?","","Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site.
If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site].
According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site.
","2006" "20061117","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Is the code 8740/3 [malignant melanoma in a junctional nevus] to be used when the pathologic diagnosis is ""malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS] for malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus. A compound nevus is not the same as a junctional nevus.
ICD-O-3 does not have a specific code for melanoma in a compound nevus. Assign the code for the type of melanoma specified; for example, NOS, superficial spreading, etc.
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.
","2006" "20061116","Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Is a ""composite mucinous adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma"" coded to 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or should 8480 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be coded rather than 8070 [squamous carcinoma] because mucinous adenocarcinoma is a higher histology code than squamous carcinoma?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, the mix of adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is adenosquamous carcinoma. Adenosquamous tumors are rare, but known, representing 3-4% of pancreatic carcinomas.
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.
","2006" "20061114","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is a ""plaque-like nodular spitzoid malignant melanoma"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8721 [nodular melanoma]. Essentially, ""plaque-like nodular spitzoid malignant melanoma"" is nodular melanoma. Code 8721 is the most specific ICD-O-3 histology code available for this diagnosis.
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.
","2006" "20061113","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a final pathology diagnosis of ""malignant melanoma, NOS"" that is clinically described as a nevus?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code 8720 [malignant melanoma]. Assign the histology code based on the histology stated in the final diagnosis on the pathology report. The pathology report must say melanoma arising in junctional nevus to use the code 8740/3 [Malignant melanoma in junctional nevus].
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.
","2006" "20061112","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: In a patient with Muir Torre syndrome, should each of 12 sebaceous carcinomas diagnosed from 1994-2005 be a new primary or should this process be one primary diagnosed in 1994?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Follow the rules in the 2004 manual for determining multiple primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are in different sites (topography code difference in the first two numeric digits after the C), they are separate primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are more than two months apart, they are separate primaries.
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.
","2006" "20061111","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.
","2006" "20061110","Histology (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How is a ""sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC)"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8020 [carcinoma, undifferentiated]. ""Sinonasal"" refers to anatomic location of primary site not histology.
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.
","2006" "20061109","CS Tumor Size--Lung/Breast: Explain why the SEER instructions differ from the CS Manual regarding priority order of sources to code tumor size? See Discussion.","Regarding the 2004 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Site Specific Coding Modules, Lung and Breast. The priority of sources for coding tumor size is Pathology, Operative Report, PE, imaging for breast and pathology, operative, endoscopic, and imaging for lung. This differs from the CS Manual instructions.","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.For cases diagnosed in 2007 and forward, follow the instructions in the 2007 SEER manual and the CS manual.
","2006" "20061108","Histology/Polyp--Colon: Which histology code is used when a colon biopsy states adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp, but the resection path states only adenocarcinoma, and does not mention arising in a polyp. See Discussion.","This scenario occurs frequently and our QC staff is divided on which code to use.
03-24-06 Rectal Polyp: Adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated. 6-29-06 Rectum: Adenoca, MD, invades into the submucosa. No malignancy (0/15) LNs.
","Use the polyp information from the biopsy and code adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp (8210, 8261 or 8263 as appropriate).","2006" "20061107","Histology (Pre-2007)/Flag--Pancreas: How is histology coded given that 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] of the pancreas is not on the SEER Site/Type validation listing?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] for ""non-small cell carcinoma"" of the pancreas. If necessary, override any site/type edits.
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.
","2006" "20061106","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.
","2006" "20061105","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.
","2006" "20061104","Reportability/Behavior--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a ""myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable"" coded to 9975 with a behavior code of 3 as indicated in the WHO blue book on ""Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues"" or is it not abstracted because it has a behavior code of 1 which means the case is not reportable?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code MDS/MPD U to 9975/3 [Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable]. Change the behavior code to /3 according to ICD-O-3 Rule F. The case is reportable.
The WHO book is more recent and gives a specific code for this new hybrid category of the WHO/REAL classification.
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.
","2006" "20061103","CS Extension--Bladder: How is extension coded if the bladder tumor involves the right ureter per cystoscopy but the TURB specimen demonstrates muscularis propria invasion?","","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 CS extension based on the area of deepest invasion. According to the TNM Supplement, which was used as a resource in the development of CS, ""Direct invasion of the distal ureter is classified by the depth of greatest invasion in any of the involved organs."" Record the greatest extent of disease using both clinical and operative/pathologic assessment.
","2006" "20061102","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: How is a poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with ""squamoid differentiation"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Squamoid and squamous are synonymous. Squamoid is non-standard terminology. It means ""squamous like"" and is a synonym of squamous.
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.
","2006" "20061101","CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?","","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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.
Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.
","2006" "20061099","CS Extension--Lung: If only a ""single"" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are ""multiple"" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement?","","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.
No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.
","2006" "20061098","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.
","2006" "20061097","Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion.
","Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia.
Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis.
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.
","2006" "20061095","First Course Treatment: If an ""aromatase inhibitor"" used as a complement to Tamoxifen is treatment, how should it be coded?
","","When an aromatase inhibitor is part of the planned first course of therapy, code it under hormone treatment.
When a change of drug is PLANNED, it is part of the same course even if subcategories change. This is the usual situation with Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (for example: Femara). The switch to Femara is planned, so it is not a new course. When a drug change happens that is not planned, it is still the same course if both drugs are in the same category and subcategory. An unplanned drug change to a different subcategory would be a new course.
","2006" "20061094","Ambiguous terminology: Does the phrase ""considered to be"" represent ambiguous terminology when modifying a reportable term?
","","A tumor considered to be malignant is reportable. ""Considered to be"" is an UNambiguous term.
","2006" "20061093","Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is ""focally suspicious for DCIS"" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.","Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term ""suspicious"" for DCIS.
Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.
Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.
","Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false.","2006" "20061092","CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ disease?","","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 CS tumor size 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer.
","2006" "20061091","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.
","2006" "20061090","CS Extension--Prostate: Does the term ""activity"" in a Prostascint report indicate a clinically apparent tumor, tumor extension or tumor involvement for this primary site? (http://www.rtrurology.com/prostascint.htm)","","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.
No, the term ""activity"" alone does not indicate clinically apparent tumor or involvement.
","2006" "20061088","CS Extension--Lymphoma: If bilateral tonsils are involved with lymphoma, is it one or two regions of involvement and how is extension coded?
","","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.For cases diagnosed 1-1-08 and later: Assign CS extension code 10 [involvement of a single lymph node region]. Bilateral tonsils are one organ/site.
See Note 1 under CS Extension. Tonsil is coded the same as a lymph node region.
","2006" "20061087","Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.
","PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated.","The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3.","2006" "20061086","Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of ""Tumoral melanosis"" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as ""Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma"", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion.
","Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma.
If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note?
","Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma.
","2006" "20061085","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
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.
","2006" "20061081","Collaborative Staging--Lung: Given that the AJCC lung TNM is not applicable for a high grade sarcoma of this site, how do we code Collaborative Stage for this site/histo combination when the pathologist indicates a TNM stage of T2bN0M0=stage III, using AJCC Soft Tissue Sarcoma schema?","","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.
Use the lung schema to code CS for sarcoma of the lung. Complete the CS information as best you can from the medical record WITHOUT using the TNM Soft Tissue Sarcoma staging form. Visceral sarcomas are specifically excluded from soft tissue sarcoma TNM staging and sarcomas are excluded from the TNM staging for lung.
Sarcoma is listed on the Histology Exclusion Table for lung. When a case is coded in Collaborative Staging and the histology is on the exclusion list, SEER Summary Stage 1977 and 2000 can be assigned. For these cases, TNM will not be calculated and displayed results will be ""T NA N NA M NA and Stage Group NA"".
","2006" "20061080","Histology (Pre-2007): Is histology for an anorectal biopsy of ""Cloacogenic carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma with basaloid features)"" coded to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma] or 8083/3 [Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8124/3 [Cloacogenic carcinoma]. These are squamous cell carcinomas of basaloid type that are found in the cloacogenic (transitional) zone of the anal canal.
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.
","2006" "20061079","Histology--Lymphoma: Is histology for ""large B-cell lymphoma evolving from extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma"" coded to 9680/3 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, NOS] or 9699/3 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma]?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the histology as 9699 [marginal zone B-cell lymphoma]. Code the histology from the original diagnosis.
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.
","2006" "20061078","Histology (Pre-2007): How is ""adenocarcinoma, diffuse type, with signet ring features"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Histology coding Rule 7 is the only rule that applies to this diagnosis. Assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.
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.
","2006" "20061077","Chemotherapy--Breast: Is chemotherapy administered for inflammatory breast cancer also coded as therapy for an in situ tumor in the contralateral breast?","","Yes. Because chemotherapy would likely affect both primaries, code it as treatment for both the in situ and the inflammatory breast cancers.","2006" "20061076","Laterality--Breast: Should laterality be coded to 9 [Paired site but no information concerning laterality] or to the side with the positive lymph nodes for a case in which no breast mass is found but positive axillary lymph nodes are found on only one side?","","Code laterality of the primary site to the side with the positive nodes when there are unilateral positive nodes and the laterality of the primary site is otherwise unknown.","2006" "20061075","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: Is a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides followed a year later with a biopsy proven diagnosis of anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma stated to represent a transformation of the previous mycosis fungoides reportable as one or two primaries?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This is one primary. Code the histology according to the original diagnosis, mycosis fungoides. The physician states that this one disease process started as mycosis fungoides and progressed into lymphoma. A physician's statement has priority over other sources in determining the number of hematopoietic primaries.
In October 2006, a committee will begin working on multple primaries among hematopoietic diseases. The committee will provide further guidance on dealing with disease transformation and other issues.
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.
","2006" "20061072","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted and should the histology field(s) be coded to 9530/1 [Meningiomatosis, NOS] or 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] to represent a case that presents with MRI confirmed multiple meningiomas (e.g., left dura, right parasagittal region, and left frontal lobe)?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract this case as two primaries, right and left cerebral meninges. Code the histology for both primaries to 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS]. Use code 9530/1 [Meningiomatosis, NOS] only when the diagnosis is stated to be meningiomatosis, or multiple meningiomas.
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.
","2006" "20061071","CS Extension--Lymphoma: In the absence of physician staging, is an ""enlarged"" spleen seen on CT coded as involvement of the spleen for lymphoma cases?","","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.
Do not code spleen involvement when the only evidence is an enlarged spleen.
When imaging is the only diagnostic tool (no biopsy or splenectomy), spleen involvement is based on the presence of nodules and not on enlargement. Splenic enlargement alone (by physical exam or imaging) is insufficient to support involvement of spleen.
","2006" "20061070","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.
","2006" "20061068","Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Should the primary site be coded to C809 [Unknown primary site] or C761 [Thorax, NOS] if the patient died following a limited work-up that included on a cytology on pericardial fluid that was positive for poor differentiated adenocarcinoma?","","Based on the information provided, code the primary site to C809 [Unknown primary site]. There is not enough information provided to suggest that the primary site is the thorax or any other location.","2006" "20061063","CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.","1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?
Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?
If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)
2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))
a. Heart problems?
b. The location of the pleural effusion?
i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?
ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?
iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?
iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?
SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION
Note 6: Pleural Effusion.
A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.
B. Note from AJCC manual: Most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor.
In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.
","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.
1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.
2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.
","2006" "20061062","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.
","2006" "20061061","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion.","Note 2 in CS manual states: ""If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes.""
1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60?
2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process?
3. What would constitute ""absence of other information""?
4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users?
5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate?
","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 CS Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have ""regular"" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described.
1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes.
2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3.
3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50.
4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries.
5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary.
","2006" "20061060","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: How are SSF 5 (Gleasons Primary and Secondary Pattern Value) and SSF 6 (Gleasons Score) coded when there is a higher Gleason's pattern in less than 5% of the tumor? See Discussion.","Radical prostatectomy pathology states prostate adenocarcinoma ""combined Gleasons score 3+3=6, with a small portion of Gleasons pattern 4 component comprising less than 5% of tumor volume.""
The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs refers to ""tertiary"" Gleasons patterns in addition to the primary and secondary patterns. On prostatectomy, when this tertiary pattern is 4 or 5, WHO recommends that it should be reported in addition to the Gleasons score even when it is less than 5% of the 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.
Record Gleason's pattern and score from the largest specimen, even if this is a lower number. Ignore the tertiary pattern for now.
This may change when the AJCC 7th Edition is published, as there is much discussion regarding the tertiary patterns and when they should be utilized. If there is a change in AJCC, at that time there will be a change to CS.
","2006" "20061059","Histology--Breast: Does ""cancerization"" mean invasive for a breast tumor described as ""DCIS with lobular cancerization""?","","No, cancerization is not a synonym for invasive. Cells of DCIS can extend not only along the duct but also into the terminal lobules. This extension is referred to as lobular cancerization.","2006" "20061058","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Can autopsy results also be used when coding SSF3, pathologic extension, given that the instructions only address the use of prostatectomy findings when coding this field?
","","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.
If the prostate cancer was diagnosed on autopsy, or the autopsy was performed within the staging timeframe (See 2004 SEER Manual, page 112), code SSF3 using the autopsy information.
","2006" "20061057","CS Extension--Lung: Can extension be coded to 10 (Tumor confined to one lung) when either an autopsy or a CT scan describes the tumor as a mass of a specified size located in one lobe of the lung without any description of extension and no available TNM provided? See Discussion.","Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.
Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.
In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.
","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, assign code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] for a mass in one lobe when none of the descriptions in codes 11 to 80 are documented.
","2006" "20061056","CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are positive paracecal lymph nodes for cecal primaries coded to 10 [paracolic] or code 20 [cecal: anterior (prececal), posterior (retrocecal); NOS]?","","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 20 [Regional lymph node(s) for specific subsites]. Paracecal means near the cecum. Paracecal lymph nodes are regional nodes for the cecum and not for other colon subsites.
","2006" "20061055","CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What criteria is used to distinguish between code 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] and 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when positive lymph nodes are removed during a colon resection but the lymph node location is not stated? See Discussion.","Example 1: Descending colon excision: Metastatic adenocarcinoma in 8 of 9 lymph nodes.
Example 2: Hepatic flexure and en bloc resection of liver. Adenocarcinoma in 3 of 10 lymph nodes.
","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 positive nodes included with the resected specimen as regional lymph nodes, NOS when the location is not stated. See number 3.e under the general instructions for coding CS lymph nodes.
Based only on the information provided, code CS lymph nodes 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] for both examples.
","2006" "20061054","First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy: Is adriamycin used in a chemoembolization procedure coded as chemotherapy?","","Code as chemotherapy only when a chemotherapeutic agent is used, such as adriamycin. Do not automatically code chemoembolization as chemotherapy.","2006" "20061053","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.
","2006" "20061052","Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: How is this field coded when the clinician confirms that the diagnosis of CML is based on a combination of the clinical picture and positive cytogenetic studies?","","Assign code 1 [Positive histology]. For leukemia only, assign code 1 for positive hematologic findings including peripheral blood smears, CBCs and WBCs.
Cytogenetics studies would have been done on blood. Therefore, histology provided diagnostic confirmation as it would with smear, bone marrow, or other special study of blood cells.
","2006" "20061051","Reportability--Melanoma: Is the final diagnosis for an excisional skin biopsy of ""compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression"" reportable if a re-excision may be clinically indicated because there is an ""overlap of morphology between malignant melanoma and nevi with severe atypia, and there's evidence of regression""?
","","Compound nevus with severe atypia is not reportable unless also stated to be malignant melanoma or melanoma in situ.
","2006" "20061050","Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer?","","Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer.","2006" "20061049","Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is ""in the range of malignancy "" be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?","","The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
""In the range of malignancy"" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
","2006" "20061048","CS Extension--Pancreas, Head: When a tumor is described as having ""vascular encasement of the celiac artery"", is extension coded to 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis]?","","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 vascular encasement of the celiac artery to CS extension code 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis].
This celiac axis is a small (1cm) area of branching arteries. The celiac artery branches into hepatic, gastric, and splenic at the axis. Dissecting tumor out from around the celiac axis is very tricky and usually encasement by tumor is a sign of inoperability.
","2006" "20061047","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Peritoneum: How are these fields coded for extraovarian peritoneal carcinomas presenting with multiple peritoneal implants? See Discussion.","Patient presented with large omental cake and multiple peritoneal implants including implants on the rectosigmoid serosa and right ovary. Path revealed papillary serous adenocarcinoma consistent with peritoneal primary.
Per AJCC Manual, extraovarian peritoneal carcinoma is usually staged with the ovarian staging classification.
We understand that the CS Manual will eventually be revised to include staging for extraovarian peritoneal primaries. In the meantime, how do we use the existing CS scheme for peritoneum to code these cases?
","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 CS Extension 99 [unknown] and CS Mets at DX 99 [unknown].
The issue has been sent to the CS steering committee for resolution. This answer will be updated when the steering committee provides a resolution.
","2006" "20061046","First Course Treatment--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are Decadron and Zometa coded when used in the treatment of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.","The 2004 SEER Program Manual instructions for coding hormone therapy do not provide any specific instructions for coding adrenocorticotrophic agents. Per Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases pg. 3, prednisone and decadron are coded as hormonal therapy (when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen). Does this mean that Decadron without chemo agents is not coded as treatment? In paging through the hematopoietic disease manual, one sees this instruction for other sites as well. Yet, for other diseases (e.g., Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia on page 18), prednisone is coded as hormone therapy (not necessarily as part of chemo regimen).","Code the decadron as hormonal treatment. Do not code the zometa--it is an ancillary agent.
In the August 2006 update of SEER*Rx, a note was added to decadron and other hormonal agents that they can be used to control white cell proliferation in lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
In general, decadron is used more commonly for supportive care and as an antiemetic than as hormone therapy.
","2006" "20061045","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded for a melanoma primary when melanoma is identified in lymph nodes but no primary skin tumor is found? See Discussion.","Excisional biopsy of an inguinal lymph node revealed metastatic melanoma. Multiple skin biopsies did not reveal the primary site.
Subsequent lymph node dissection of superficial inguinal nodes showed microscopic focus of malignant melanoma in subcutaneous fat adjacent to previous procedure site. No evidence of metastatic melanoma in 7 lymph nodes. Dissection of external iliac lymph nodes showed no evidence of melanoma in 5 lymph nodes.
","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 CS Lymph Nodes 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS]. Code CS Mets at DX 00 [None]. Since it cannot be determined whether the lymph nodes are regional or distant, code CS Lymph Nodes to lymph nodes, NOS.
","2006" "20061044","CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: If a lymph node dissection of the neck reveals that 1/24 lymph nodes is positive and the positive 5.6 cm lymph node extends throughout levels II-IV, how are the SSF 3 (status of levels I-III lymph nodes) and SSF4 (status of levels IV-V lymph nodes) fields coded?","","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.According to the CS Steering Committee, code 999 for SSF 3 and SSF 4. In this case, do not make assumptions about which level of lymph nodes were involved.
","2006" "20061042","First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: Should the use of proton pump inhibitors be coded as treatment for lymphoma primaries in patients with H Pylori?","","No, do not code proton pump inhibitors as treatment. These are used for gastric acid suppression. Proton pump inhibitors are used to treat symptoms, not the lymphoma itself.","2006" "20061041","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: How is SSF 6 coded for this site when there is only one Gleason number documented and the number is less than 5 (e.g., Gleasons 3)?","","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 999 [unknown or no information]. Note 1 was revised in September 2006 to clarify this situation.
Note 1 states ""If only one number is given and it is less than or equal to 5, code the total score to 999, unknown or no
information.
","2006" "20061040","Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of ""squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS"" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus?","","Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus.","2006" "20061039","CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a ""greater than"" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion.","Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]?","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 CS tumor size 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020.
The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as ""greater than ___ cm.""
It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2.
","2006" "20061038","Treatment, NOS: Is Bromocriptine coded to hormone or ""other"" treatment for a pituitary primary that is not surgically treated?","","Yes, code bromocriptine as hormone treatment for pituitary adenoma, as it suppresses the production of prolactin that causes the adenoma to grow.","2006" "20061037","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.","Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is ""consistent with malignant lymphoma"" and Micro says ""morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered""
A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: ""Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma.""
These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].
The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.
According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.
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.
","2006" "20061036","CS Extension--Lymphoma: For lymphoma cases, can extension be coded to 80 [Nodular involvement of lungs] based on imaging or operative findings when there is no positive statement of involvement? See Discussion.","Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings?
Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R.
","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 80 can be assigned based on imaging or operative findings as in the lymphoma case described above. The fact that this extension was not based on pathological evidence is captured in the evaluation code. Assign CS/TS Ext-Eval code 0 [No staging laparotomy done. No autopsy evidence used (clinical)].
","2006" "20061034","Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are ""favored"" but other potential sites ""cannot be excluded""? See Discussion.","Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.
Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.
Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?
Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.
FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.
What primary site code do we use?
Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.
Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?
","Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.
Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.
Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.
","2006" "20061033","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is benign neural tissue compatible with a glioneuronal hamartoma of the cerebellopontine angle reportable?
","","No. A glioneuronal hamartoma is not neoplastic and not reportable. See page 2 of the 2004 SEER Program Coding and Staging manual for the list of reportable brain/CNS tumors. There is no ICD-O-3 code for hamartoma.
","2006" "20061032","Behavior--Head & Neck: Should the SEER IF_Morph_3 edit be modified because it does not allow a behavior code 2 with histology 8941 [carcinoma in a pleomorphic adenoma] for a parotid primary?","","Code the behavior as 2 and over-ride the edit. The edit is there to flag unusual combinations. Once you have verified that the behavior is coded correctly, over-ride the edit.
The surgeon stage of T2 is based on size of tumor, the TIS is based on behavior. Code according to pathologically confirmed TIS.
","2006" "20061031","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).
Assign CS extension code 40 to the case above.
","2006" "20061030","Reportability: Is a carcinoid of the appendix that extends into mesoappendiceal adipose tissue reportable? See SINQ 20031106.","","No. Extension does not make a carcinoid of the appendix reportable. Benign and borderline tumors can and do extend into surrounding tissue.","2006" "20061029","Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary.
If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary.
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.
","2006" "20061025","Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How is an ""advanced MDS (RAEB-T)/emerging AML"" coded when discovered on a bone marrow biopsy?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code histology to 9984/3 [RAEB-T]. This particular MDS is refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation. It has not yet progressed to acute myeloid leukemia.
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.
","2006" "20061024","Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How is a ""mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma"" coded? See Discussion.","Literature search results: ""The new WHO-classification of renal tumors includes new subtypes, one of which is the mucinous, tubular, and spindle cell carcinoma. Many of these tumors had been previously diagnosed as sarcomatoid carcinoma. There are areas of cord-like growth and spindle cell configuration, sometimes with a clear cell appearance.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code specific to this combination histology. 8255 is the best code available.
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.
","2006" "20061023","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.","2006" "20061022","Reportability: Are glomus jugulare tumors reportable?
","","Begining with cases diagnosed 2021, glomus jugulare tumor, NOS is reportable. It is listed in ICD-O-3.2 with a behavior code of /3.
","2006" "20061021","Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: How is a ""carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, and signet ring cell features"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SEER Manual applies to this case.
Rule 7: Code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. This is the rule with the lowest priority and should be used infrequently.
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.
","2006" "20061020","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
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.
","2006" "20061019","CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: If the tumor size for the breast is unknown, and it is unknown whether the tumor is mixed in situ and invasive or ""pure"", how is SSF6 to be coded? See Discussion.
","The definition for SSF6 for breast changed from ""Unknown if invasive and in situ components present, unknown if tumor size represents mixed tumor or a pure tumor"" to an added clarification of ""Clinical tumor size coded."" Since the clinical tumor size is NOT coded, this does not fit.
The definition for 060 is ""Invasive and in situ components present, unknown size of tumor (CS Tumor Size coded 999). Since it is unknown if the tumor is mixed, this definition does not fit either.
It seems that the revised (April 2005) definition for 888 has left a situation that cannot be coded.
","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.SSF 6 should be coded 888 in this case. SEER will make the CS task force aware of this situation.
","2006" "20061018","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion.","MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.
However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. ""...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis"" is not reportable. ""Suggests"" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.
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.
","2006" "20061017","CS Eval--Prostate: How is CS Ts/Ext Eval to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer that is treated with Lupron and a subsequent prostatectomy? See Discussion.","Patient diagnosed with prostate cancer on biopsy for elevated PSA, CS extension code 15. Patient then receives 4 courses of Lupron. Subsequent radical prostatectomy shows bilateral lobe involvement with capsule invasion, SSF 3 pathologic extension code 032.","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 CS TS/Ext Eval 6 [surgical resection performed with pre-surgical systemic treatment, tumor size/ext based on path evidence]. For prostate, CS TS/Ext eval must reflect coding of CS extension and SSF 3. In this case, SSF 3 code 032 is based on the prostatectomy information which occurred after systemic treatment.
","2006" "20061016","CS Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): If a patient with cancer of the larynx is described as experiencing hoarseness, is that sufficient information to code ""vocal cord fixation"" or does that phrase need to be used?","","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.
Do not code vocal cord fixation when the only information available is ""hoarseness."" Vocal cord fixation must be documented on endoscopy. Hoarseness is a common presenting symptom of laryngeal malignancy.
","2006" "20061015","2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Site Specific Factor: Does SEER plan to incorporate the ""Recording Tumor Markers in Collaborative Staging System Site-Specific Factors"" document that was prepared for the CS Task Force Training Materials into the 2006 SEER Manual?","","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.
There are no plans at this time to incorporate the Recording Tumor Markers document into the SEER manual. This document is not part of the Collaborative Staging manual. This is a stand-alone reference endorsed by the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee for use in coding site-specific tumor markers.
","2006" "20061014","Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is this field coded to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy] or 33 [Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection] when a lobectomy specimen includes 2 AP window lymph nodes? See Discussion.","LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded
Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?
","Code surgery of primary site to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy]. According to the information provided, there was no lymph node dissection in this case. The 2 AP window nodes were obtained as part of the lobectomy specimen.","2006" "20061013","CS Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can this field be coded to 10 [Localized disease] for an extramedullary plasmacytoma that is limited to an extramedullary primary, such as appendix, given that this histology is not listed as one of the allowable histology/CS extension combinations for this code? See Discussion.","The Hematopoietic Diseases scheme for CS lists specific histologies for which CS Extension can be coded to 10. Included is plasmacytoma, NOS [9731/3]. However, extramedullary plasmacytoma [9734/3] is not listed as one of the histologies.","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 10 [Localized disease].
Both the 2007 SEER manual (page C-1072) and the CS Version 01.04.00 manual (page II-550) have been updated to include 9734 [extramedullary plasmacytoma] under extension code 10.
","2006" "20061012","CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: If the lymph nodes listed in codes 10 and 20 were contralateral or bilateral, and the only description was ""mass"", ""adenopathy"", or ""enlargement"" on mediastinoscopy or x-ray, is this field coded to 60? See Discussion.","(CS Manual page 407) Note 2: If at mediastinoscopy/x-ray, the description is ""mass"", ""adenopathy"", or ""enlargement"" of any lymph nodes named as regional in codes 10 and 20, assume that at least regional lymph nodes were involved.","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. The named nodes listed in codes 10 or 20 should be coded 60 if the ""mass"", ""adenopathy"", or ""enlargement"" on mediastinscopy or x-ray is described as bilateral or contralateral.
","2006" "20061011","CS Site Specific Factor/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: If the ITCs are greater than 0.2 mm, how are these fields coded?","","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.
Lymph nodes with metastases greater than 0.2 mm are counted as positive. Code in CS Lymph Nodes and CS Regional LN Positive. Do not code ITC's greater than 0.2 mm in CS Site Specific Factor 4.
","2006" "20061010","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If an oral mucosa, right hard palate biopsy contains a composite lymphoma [low-grade follicular + chronic lymphocytic leukemia], how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is one primary. Assign code 9590 [Malignant lymphoma, NOS]. This is a composite lymphoma. Code to lymphoma when there is any solid tumor (in lymph nodes, tissue, etc.) Code to lymphoma, NOS since this is not purely follicular and there is no code for composite lymphoma.
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.
","2006" "20061009","CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If there are two ER/PR tests, one positive and one negative, which result should be coded in the SSF fields 1 and 2? See Discussion.","SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast?
Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR +
","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.
For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007, according to the CS Steering Committee, record the pathologist's interpretation of the assay value for the most representative tumor specimen. This may require conversation with the pathologist when specimen size is not specified.
","2006" "20061008","Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus uteri: How is a polyp with ""endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma"" coded? See Discussion.","The path report for the TAH stated the endometrium contained an endometrial polyp measuring 6x3x3cm. Within the polyp there was endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma. There is no myometrial invasion by the tumor. (The Endometrial bx before surgery was positive for Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor.)","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8980 [Carcinosarcoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, Malignant mullerian mixed tumor is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma is now the preferred terminology rather than malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.
Carcinosarcoma has both malignant epithelial and mesenchymal components. The epithelial component is usually glandular (adenocarcinoma in this case). The mesenchymal component is usually sarcoma (as 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.
","2006" "20061006","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: If an orchiectomy specimen contains non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor and a separate satellite of seminoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?","Pathology: R Orchiectomy: 2.1 cm non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor (50% teratoma primarily mature, 50% embryonal CA and yolk sac tumor). Located 3cm from the main tumor is a 2mm satellite pure seminoma.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is a single primary because the first three digits of the ICD-O-3 histology codes are the same, according to Rule 3a on page 11 of the 2004 SEER manual. Code the histology 9065 [Germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. Code 9065 is preferred over the less-specific code of 9061 [Seminoma, NOS].
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.
","2006" "20061005","CS Reg LN Pos/Exam: Are lymph nodes coded as positive or negative when the pathology report for a lymph node dissection performed after radiation and chemo reveals that the nodes are negative but they demonstrated previous involvement by cancer? See Discussion.","Scenario: The patient was treated with radiation and chemotherapy prior to resection for esophageal cancer. The pathology report stated, ""1/3 nodes c/w treated previous ca.""","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.Record lymph nodes that are pathologically confirmed as positive in Regional Nodes Positive. Evidence of previous involvement by cancer is not recorded in this data item.
In the above scenario, the lymph nodes are negative according to pathology.
Clinically positive lymph nodes are coded in CS Lymph Nodes.
","2006" "20061004","CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6?
","","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.
Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size.
For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive].
","2006" "20061003","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.
","2006" "20061002","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.
","2006" "20061001","2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: On page C-353, in the supraglottic larynx schema, there is no mention of Level IV nodes in the CS Lymph Node codes.","","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 CS Steering Committee is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it.
","2006" "20051145","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion.
","Path final diagnosis states: ""No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section."" Path micro states: ""Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient.""
","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.
This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging.
According to the TNM supplement, ""Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa (""skip metastasis"") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis.
","2005" "20051144","CS Lymph Nodes: Are lymphatic channels/vessels within an organ coded as regional lymph nodes?","","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.Lymphatic channels/vessels carry lymph fluid throughout the organs and tissues of the body. Lymph channels/vessels within an organ are not nodes. Lymph channels/vessels outside an organ are not nodes.
","2005" "20051143","CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate primaries?","","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.Do not use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.
The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that ""After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging.""
August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee.
","2005" "20051142","Reportability--Skin: Is a non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] of the skin SEER reportable?
","","Non-genital skin primaries with a histology code equal to or less than 8110 are not reportable to SEER; therefore, the combination of C44_ and 8046/3 is not reportable.
","2005" "20051140","CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Breast: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Discussion.","A breast cancer patient had an FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection.
Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy.
This question is answered for EOD in SINQ 20031059. What is the answer for Collaborative Stage?
","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.Include all nodes examined by the pathologist in Regional lymph nodes positive and Regional lymph nodes examined, unless there is disease progression. These fields are cumulative -- record the total number of regional nodes positive and examined during first course of treatment. Preoperative treatment does not affect the coding of these fields.
An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 95 for number positive and 95 for number examined.
For the case examples above, assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07 for both examples.
","2005" "20051139","Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.","11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.
2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm
11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma
3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells
4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma
","Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case.","2005" "20051138","Histology/Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is ""drug induced"" myelodysplastic syndrome synonymous with ""therapy related"" myelodysplastic syndrome? If so, would ""drug induced"" myelodysplastic syndome be SEER reportable and coded with the histology 9987/3?","Page 44 of the ""Abstracting & Coding Guide for the Hematopoiectic Diseases"" lists this histology & behavior with the proper EOD code to use but yet on page 36 it states ""Do not accession the following diagnoses coded to 285.0 and lists secondary SA as well as drug-induced SA.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
There is considerable difference between therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and drug-induced sideroblastic anemia (SA).
Therapy-related MDS is the result of irreversible damage to the bone marrow caused by certain kinds of myelotoxic drugs used to treat cancer. Examples are Cytoxan and Etoposide. There is usually a 10+ year delay between the first primary and its treatment and the therapy-related MDS. Therapy-related MDS is not reversible and is reportable as a malignancy. Because the drugs were almost always given to treat a malignancy, therapy-related MDS is almost always a second primary.
Drug-induced SA is not reportable as a malignancy. Drug-induced SA is the result of short term effects of certain drugs on the bone marrow. Drug-induced SA is reversible, as the marrow recovers once the drugs are out of the system.
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.
","2005" "20051136","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion.","Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative.
Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time?
","For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable.
The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment.
","2005" "20051135","2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Tumor Size--Can the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information, on page 6 in the SEER EOD Manual, January 1998, be used to code descriptive tumor size in Collaborative Stage?","","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.
Use the instructions in the CS Manual, Appendix 1, page 62. This information will be added to the 2004 SEER manual in the next update.
Do not use the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information from EOD for CS Tumor Size.
","2005" "20051134","Histology--Lymphoma: How is ""histiomonocytic lymphoma"" coded?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9755 [Histiocytic sarcoma; True histiocytic lymphoma]. ""Histiomonocytic"" is not standard terminology, according to our expert consultant. However, 9755 is the best code to assign.
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.
","2005" "20051133","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How are the number of primaries, histologies and CS extension fields coded for breast tissue that contains separate areas of invasive ductal carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma and Paget disease? See Discussion.","Excisional biopsy of a breast mass: 1.0 cm tumor that was infiltrating ductal carcinoma, high grade, with an associated intraductal component with comedonecrosis.
Pathology report for the mastectomy three weeks later: no residual tumor was found near the original biopsy site. In another portion of the same breast was found high-grade intraductal carcinoma involving the nipple ducts, with Paget Disease of the nipple. (No size was given for this.)
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is a single primary. According to Exception 3 of Multiple Primary Rule 6 for multiple tumors, combinations of Paget disease and ductal carcinoma are a single primary. The histology code for this case is 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Assign CS extension code 10 [confined to breast tissue] based on the information above.
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.
","2005" "20051132","Primary Site/CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded for untreated lung primaries when only limited information is available from scans, bronchoscopies and biopsies? See Discussion.","3/13/04 CT scan Chest: extensive mediastinal, subcarinal, rt hilar lymphadenopathy; separate tumor mass in medial rt lung
3/16/04 Bronchoscopy: RLL/RML completely obstructed with extrinsic compression. Impression: CA of lung with hilar adenopathy.
Bronchial wash: PD non small cell CA
Bx RLL: up to 0.2 cm PD Adenocarcinoma c/w primary lung CA.
Treatment not recommended.
Expired 5/03/04.
","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 primary is in the right lung according to the available information.
Assign CS extension code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung]. The only information on extension is that there is a tumor in one lung.
Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 20 [Mediastinal and subcarinal lymph node involvement]. The CT scan confirms mediastinal and subcarinal lymphadenopathy.
Code tumor Size as 999 [Unknown]. ""Completely obstructed"" is not a size. Do not code the size of the biopsy specimen.
","2005" "20051131","Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion.
","The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says ""Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual.""
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases.
If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast tissue.
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.
","2005" "20051129","Reportability/Behavior--Thyroid: Does the term ""invasion"" indicate the presence of a malignant tumor? See Discussion.","Left thyroid lobectomy showed microfollicular neoplasm with evidence of minimal invasion. Micro portion of path report stated, ""The capsular contour is focally distorted by a finger of the microfollicular nodule which appears to penetrate into the adjacent capsular and thyroid tissue.""","We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy.
If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment.
According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy.
","2005" "20051128","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor 3--Breast: How are positive intramammary lymph nodes reflected in these fields? See Discussion.","Patient with breast cancer underwent mastectomy. No axillary lymph nodes were positive, but 1 out of 2 intramammary lymph nodes were positive for mets (greater than 2 mm). CS Lymph node codes describe axillary and internal mammary nodes, but do not describe intramammary lymph nodes.","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.
Intramammary lymph nodes are coded as axillary lymph nodes for staging purposes. Intramammary node are nodes within the breast tissue. Both staging and treatment suggest these are equivalent to axillary nodes.
","2005" "20051127","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an ""intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)"" of the spine reportable? See Discussion.","Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor.
Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS?
","For cases diagnosed 2011 and later:
A spinal ""intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)"" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.
See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup,
http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability
","2005" "20051126","Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What codes are used to represent ""mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma"" and ""papillary serous carcinoma with focal clear cell features"" of the ovary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8323 [Mixed cell adenocarcinoma] to ""mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma."" This is histology coding rule 3 in the 2004 SEER manual under single tumor (page 86). There is no other code for this mixture.
Example 1: 8323
Example 2: 8461 (clear cell is not coded according to Rule 6, page 87, because it is not the majority of the tumor).
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.
","2005" "20051125","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Is there an established range of values that can be used to code negative, borderline or elevated PSA values? See Discussion.","Previous SEER prostate coding guidelines listed a PSA range that could be used to code negative, borderline, or elevated values in the absence of any statement concerning elevated PSA in the medical record. Is this still in effect for SSF 2, or do we need a definite statement when only a numeric value is given?","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.
This matter is under consideration by the CS Steering Committee. The CS Steering committee is reviewing options for incorporating SEER guidelines into the CS manual.
","2005" "20051124","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Are the EOD guidelines developed for coding apex involvement still in effect for determining the code for apical involvement in SSF 4? See Discussion.","How do the old prostate codes 31, 33, and 34 correspond to the new SSF 4 field? Because ""arising in"" or ""extending into"" apex is rarely, if ever, stated, previous SEER guidelines instructed us to use code 33 for ""apex only"" involvement, and code 34 for ""apex and any other area of prostate"". Code 31 [into/arising, NOS] was to be avoided.","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.No, the EOD guidelines for coding apex involvement are not in effect for coding SSF4.
The codes for CS site specific factor 4 include code 2 [into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS]. When it cannot be determined if apical involvement is arising in, or extending to, the apex, use code 2.
","2005" "20051122","CS Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How is this field coded when no scan, scope or surgical evaluation of regional lymph nodes is performed for a case with localized disease in the primary site? See Discussion.","Prior to initiation of collaborative stage, SEER prostate guidelines instructed us to code lymph node involvement as negative when clinical or pathologic extension was coded 10-34 and there was no lymph node information. Is this guideline still in effect, or do we follow the collaborative stage rules which require lymph node information or, in absence of node info, usual treatment for localized disease?","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.For prostate and other ""inaccessible sites"" with localized disease, code the regional lymph nodes as clinically negative when not mentioned on imaging or exploratory surgery.
","2005" "20051120","CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is ""adherent to duodenum"" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the ""subserosal tissue""? See Discussion.","7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.","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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].
Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.
","2005" "20051119","CS Eval--Colon: When the surgical resection occurs after radiation or chemo, how is the tumor size/extension evaluation field coded when there is no mention of the tumor size or extension in the surgical resection pathology report? See Discussion.","6/30/04 CT Scan abd/pelvis: 7.5x7.2 cm large rectal mass with l cm nodular densities in perirectal region probably adenopathy; irregularity of perirectal soft tissue which could be due to tumor infiltration. 7/26/04 Patient has radiation therapy and 5FU. 10/19/04 LAR: MD Adenoca rectum with regional node mets (3/8).","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.Based on the information provided above, code CS Tumor Size and Extension from CT scan. Code CS TS/Ext eval 5 [Surgical resection performed with pre-surgical treatment...size based on clinical evidence].
Code CS lymph nodes using information from resection. Code CS Reg Nodes eval 6 [Regional LN removed...with pre-surgical treatment...based on pathologic evidence].
","2005" "20051118","CS Tumor Size--Rectum: Should the tumor size be coded to 080 from the colonoscopy size or 075 from the CT scan size? See Discussion.","6/29/04 Colonoscopy with biopsy: near obstructing circumferential friable mass extending from 8 to 16cm above anal verge. 6/30/04 CT Scan Abdomen/Pelvis: 7.5X7.2cm large rectal mass. The patient had radiation with concurrent 5-FU. Surgery is done after treatment.","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 tumor size as 080 (8cm). Code the largest pretreatment size recorded when there is preoperative systemic treatment.
","2005" "20051117","CS Tumor Size--Bladder: Is tumor size coded to 080 when the bladder mass is described as ""greater than 8 cm in diameter""?","","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.Based on the information provided above, code CS tumor size 080 [8 cm]. Code the information that is avaliable. Since size of tumor is not used to stage bladder cancer, an approximation is adequate.
","2005" "20051116","Primary Site--Soft Tissue: How is the primary site coded for a PNET found in the groin when the Tumor Board states the primary is unknown but the SEER site/histology validation table does not allow a site of C809 or C76x to be coded in combination with the histology of 9473/3?","","Code site to C495 [connective tissue of pelvis, groin].
This was not called metastatic PNET and no other site of disease is noted. PNET is a broad classification of a group of tumors that usually occur in the CNS and can also occur in soft tissue (neuroblastoma, extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma).
","2005" "20051115","Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: How are ""malignant cells"" in a cytology or ""probably malignancy"" in a CT scan coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8001/3 [Tumor cells, malignant] when the only information available is a cytology report stating ""malignant cells.""
Assign code 8000/3 [Neoplasm, malignant] when then only information available is a CT report stating ""probable malignancy.""
See ICD-O-3 page 27 for an explanation of ""cancer"" [8000] and ""carcinoma"" [8010].
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.
","2005" "20051114","Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: In the absence of detailed operative or pathology report descriptions of the specific segment(s) of the colon removed, should a hemicolectomy be coded if stated by the surgeon to be such?","","Yes, code hemicolectomy as stated by the surgeon when there is no conflicting or additional information avaliable.","2005" "20051113","Histology (Pre-2007): What is the difference between code 8244/3 composite carcinoid (combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma) and 8245/3 adenocarcinoid tumor?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when there is a combination of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor.
Assign code 8245/3 [adenocarcinoid] when the diagnosis is exactly ""adenocarcinoid.""
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.
","2005" "20051112","Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion.","On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology.","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.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.
The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines.
","2005" "20051111","Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out?","","Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/
SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx:
alemtuzumab/Campath
bexarotene/Targretin
bevacizumab/Avastin
bortezomib/Velcade
pegaspargase/Oncaspar
rituximab/Rituxan
trastuzumab/Herceptin
asparaginase
The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx:
epratuzumab/LymphoCide
ibrituzumab
tiuxetan/Zevalin
tositumomab/Bexxar
Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy.
There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy.
","2005" "20051110","Other Therapy: Can herbal therapy be coded when used as a single therapy or when used in combination with conventional therapy as a complimentary treatment? See Discussion.","Page 201 of the SPCM 2004, item #5, states ""Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy or given in combination with conventional therapy."" This statement itself is ok but there is no guideline on the use of complementary therapy when it is given as the only treatment. The SPCM, 3rd editon, page 140 states: ""Use code '6' for alternative and complementary therapies ONLY IF the patient receives no other type of treatment."" There is no such statement in the SPCM 2004.","Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy (alternative medicine is the only treatment) or given in combination with conventional therapy (complementary medicine plus conventional).","2005" "20051109","CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term ""focal areas"" of in situ carcinoma qualify as ""minimal"" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?","","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, the term ""focal areas"" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.
","2005" "20051108","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Which types of neurofibromatosis are reportable to SEER? See Discussion.","Clin exam: probable neurofibromatosis, type I. On the trunk alone are >14 cafe au lait spots all at least 10mm. Both axillary regions have freckling. No palpable fibromas, spine is straight, no organomegaly. MRI of head: no abnormality.","Neurofibromatosis type I (von Recklinghausen's disease, the Elephant Man disease) is primarily tumors of the subcutaneous tissues. By itself, NF1 is not reportable. NF2 is much more likely to develop acoustic neuromas. This syndrome is reportable only when acoustic neuroma(s) is present, because the acoustic neuroma is what is reportable. This case is not reportable because none of the symptoms affect the central nervous system.","2005" "20051107","Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL?","","Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma.
Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan.
","2005" "20051103","CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms ""regression is present,"" ""apparent regression,"" or ""undergoing regression"" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion.","For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present.
Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression.
Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression.
","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.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. ""Malignant melanoma, regressing"" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above.
According to our pathologist consultant:
Melanoma can occasionally undergo ""spontaneous"" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the ""host"" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma.
The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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.
","2005" "20051102","CS Extension--Breast: What is the CS Extent for this 2004 breast cancer? See Discussion.","A patient had lobular carcinoma of the left breast in 2000. At that time, she had bilateral simple mastectomies and the right breast was benign. In 2004, she notices a nodule in the right chest wall, which is excised and found to be invasive ductal ca and lobular ca in situ. So is this Sequence 2, C50.9, 8522/3. And what is the CS Extent - 40 chest wall? (The physician stages this as T2N0M0)","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.Residual breast tissue is present following a mastectomy. If the nodule is in the breast tissue (tissue above the ribs), assign CS extension code 10 [Confined to breast tissue...Localized, NOS]. If the nodule is in the chest wall (tissue below the ribs), assign code 40 [Invasion of chest wall].
","2005" "20051101","CS Extension--Cervix: How are ""positive pelvic washings"" coded for a cervical 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.
According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri.
","2005" "20051100","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a ""myeloproliferative disorder"" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the ""early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia"" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis ""myeloproliferative disorder"" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be 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.
","2005" "20051096","Primary Site--Peritoneum: During a second look staging lap following a diagnosis of serous carcinoma of the left ovary, did the physician correctly indicate a new peritoneum, NOS primary for disease described as an endometrioid adenocarcinoma in a ""paracaval cyst"" that appears to have arisen in endometriosis?","","The primary site is C482 [Peritoneum, NOS]. ""Paracaval"" means alongside or near the vena cava.
Code the site in which the primary tumor originated.
","2005" "20051095","Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: How do we code Rituxan for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Herceptin for breast cancer? See Discussion.","Page 195 of the SEER Manual 2004 lists these as examples of Immunotherapy. The new SEER*Rx categorizes these as chemotherapy.
(Sinq # 20041025 says to code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy, too.)
","Code Rituxan and Herceptin as chemotherapy.
SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. Be sure to use SEER*Rx [http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/]
because some agents changed categories when SEER*Rx was deployed.
It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
","2005" "20051094","Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as ""well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4""?","","For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above.","2005" "20051093","CS Lymph Nodes/Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Prostate: When prostate cancer is an incidental finding at cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer, is the pelvic lymph node dissection coded for the prostate as well as the bladder?","","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, the pelvic lymph node dissection is coded as regional lymph node surgery for both primaries and the nodes are counted in collaborative staging for both primaries. The examination of the pelvic lymph nodes is relevant to both the bladder and the prostatic primaries.
","2005" "20051092","CS Extension--Kidney: When an incidentally found 5 cm mass discovered on a CT scan during a work-up for colon carcinoma is stated to be consistent with renal cell ca, should the case be staged as localized or unknown when no other information is available related to a work-up for the kidney 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.
Code what is known. In the example above, the tumor size and the extension are known and can be coded. The information is limited, but not completely missing.
Code what you DO know rather than coding nothing. Any metastases from the kidney would have been discovered during the workup of the rectal cancer.
","2005" "20051090","Histology--Leukemia: How is ""T-Cell prolymphocytic leukemia, cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant"" coded when the pathology report COMMENT states: The cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant accounts for about 5% of cases of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
9834/3 [Prolymphocytic leukemia, T-cell type]. According to the WHO Classification of Haematopeietic and Lymphoid Tissue Tumours, cerebriform or Sezary cell-like is a variant form of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia.
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.
","2005" "20051089","2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Breast: Are the codes on page 94 of the SEER manual's Breast Grading Conversion Table requiring conversion of nuclear grades 1/3 and 1/2 to code 1, 2/3 to code 2, and 2/2 and 3/3 to code 3 correct or are the codes on page C-473 in the Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade) for breast correct that requires conversion of the same examples to codes 2, 3, and 4 respectively?","","On page C-473: Delete the section titled ""Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade)"" and delete the table. Use the tables on pages 94 and C-472 to code grade for breast cancer. This correction will be made in the next errata.","2005" "20051088","2004 SEER Manual Errata/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: Item 9.a on page 178 is incorrect. Do not assign surgery code 98 to lymphoma, primary in lymph nodes. See Appendix C, page C-707 for Lymphoma (primary in lymph nodes) surgery codes.","","Delete item 9. a. i. ii. and iii. on page 178 of the 2004 SEER Manual. This correction will be included in the next errata.","2005" "20051087","CS Site Specific Factor 3--Prostate: When a prostatectomy specimen shows tumor focally penetrating through the capsule into periprostatic striated muscle tissue, is the involvement coded to 041 [periprostatic tissue] or 052 [skeletal muscle, NOS]?","","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 052 [Levator muscle, Skeletal muscle, NOS, Ureter]. The description for this case states periprostatic ""striated"" muscle tissue. According to our pathologist consultant, ""striated muscle in this context is skeletal muscle and the term is being used to differentiate the muscle from smooth (non-striated) muscle."" Smooth muscle involvement would be most likely be coded 050 [Extension to bladder neck...] because smooth muscle in a prostatectomy or TURP specimen is usually from the urinary bladder neck.
","2005" "20051086","CS Site Specific Factor 4--Prostate: For apex involvement at prostatectomy, is only apical involvement found at prostatectomy included or is all histologically proven apical involvement documented in the second digit of Site Specific Factor 4? See Discussion.","Per note 1 for Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension all histologic information is used. Biopsy information would be included when coding path extension. Would all histologic information be used for coding prostatectomy apex involvement in Site Specific Factor 4?
Example 1: Prostate biopsies of the right and left apex and right and left mid gland show adenocarcinoma. Prostatectomy shows bilateral adenocarcinoma. Apex negative for tumor.
Example 2: Prostate biopsies of right apex and mid gland show adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of apex on prostatectomy path. How is CS Site Specific Factor 4 Prostate Apex Involvement coded?
","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 the second digit of CS SSF 4 based on prostatectomy only, do not include biopsy or other histologic information in the second digit.
According to the CS Steering Committee, the clinical or biopsy of the prostate is included in the first number of the code and should not be combined with the prostatectomy code which is the second number. These were separated purposely.
Example 1: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 1 [no involvement of prostatic apex].
Example 2: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 5 [apex extension unknown].
","2005" "20051083","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when there is a marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma [9699/3] diagnosed in 2000, and the clinician states that the diffuse large B-Cell type lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2004 was a transformation of the prior primary? See Discussion.
","The Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates they are most likely ""D"" different disease processes. As any low grade lymphoma can transform, we suspect this represents a transformation (the clinician is regarding this as transformed).
How many primary/ies should be coded?
And, how?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Report this case as one primary according to the physician's opinion. Code the histology as 9699/3 [marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma, NOS] and code the date of diagnosis as 2000.
Code the physicians opinion regardless of whether or not it agrees with the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table. Use the table when the physician does not state whether or not there is a new primary.
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.
","2005" "20051082","2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Colon/Bones: Is the term ""pleomorphic"" used to code tumor grade to 3 for selected primaries?","","Delete the row containing the word ""pleomorphic"" from the tables on pages 93, C-219 and C-411. This correction will be included in the next set of replacement pages for the 2004 SEER manual.","2005" "20051081","Primary Site--Bladder: What subsite is used for fundus of the bladder?","","As of November 2005, Code fundus of bladder to C678 [overlapping lesion of bladder]. Opinions vary regarding the definition of bladder ""fundus."" However, according to our pathologist consultant, fundus includes posterior, anterior and lateral walls and dome. Fundus does not include the trigone.
A correction to page C-595 of the 2004 SEER manual will be included in the next errata.
","2005" "20051080","Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion.","CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our ""hierarchy"" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging?","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.
There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension.
","2005" "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 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.
","2005" "20051078","Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If the surgical margins are greater than 1 cm for length and width but less than 1 cm for depth, do we code surgery in the 30-33 range?","","Yes, assign a surgery code from the 30-33 range when any margin is less than 1 cm. Since tumor thickness is an important prognostic factor for cutaneous melanoma, the deep margin is of particular importance.","2005" "20051077","First Course Treatment--Unknown & ill-defined site: We have a case with an unknown primary site and the patient had chemoembolization into the hepatic artery. We don't know how to code this treatment. See Discussion.","We were told to code as surgery (10) and chemo (01). However an unknown primary automatically gets a (98) surgery code & the chemo is coded (01) but we can't code as systemic therapy. This is an edit. Chemo coded but no date of systemic therapy.","Effective for cases coded prior to the change in policy made on January 9, 2008, code chemoembolization of a metastatic site as 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed] in Surgical Procedure of Other Site.
Surgery of Primary Site code 98 is assigned to all cases with an unknown primary.
In the case of a liver primary, it would be coded 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS] in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site.
","2005" "20051076","Chemotherapy--Breast: In the absence of more specific information, is the insertion of a port-a-cath one month after mastectomy enough documentation to code chemotherapy to 88 [Recommended]?","","Assign chemotherapy code 88 [Chemotherapy was recommended, but it is unknown if it was administered]. Be sure to confirm whether or not treatment was administered and update this code accordingly.","2005" "20051075","CS Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when path describes dermal lymphatic invasion of the nipple? See Discussion.","Example
Multicentric infiltrating lobular carcinoma of left breast treated with MRM. Microscopic summary: Blood/lymphatic Vessel Invasion: present. Path final diagnosis: Angiolymphatic invasion present, including dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple. Micro: There is angiolymphatic invasion, including dermal capillary invasion identified in sections of the nipple.
The path report describes multiple breast tumors, none of which is located adjacent to the nipple.
","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 CS Extension code 20 [Invasion of subcutaneous tissue...] based on the final diagnosis on the path report. There is ""dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple."" In this case, the stage will be determined by the tumor size.
","2005" "20051074","CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion.","Example
Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.
Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?
","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 description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case.
When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a ""tumor nodule,"" rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field.
","2005" "20051073","Reportability/Behavior--Colon: Is a final diagnosis of ""mucosal carcinoid"" of the colon reportable with a behavior code 2 [in situ] or 3 [invasive] if the microscopic description states that a ""malignancy is not appreciated""? See Discussion.","2002 carcinoid case. Path final diagnosis: sigmoid colon polyp, bx-- sm mucosal carcinoid (1.5mm) w/crush artifact in a colonic polyp showing assoc inflammatory and hyperplastic changes. Micro: due to prominent crush artifact, histologic detail is compromised; however, significant atypia or malignancy is not appreciated.
Our state registry requests that this case be abstracted using the histology code 8240/3 because it is a mucosal carcinoid.
AJCC states TIS as being confined w/i basement membrane w/no extension through muscularis mucosae into submucosa. SEER-EOD codes as invasive: mucosa, lamina propria and muscularis mucosae. Our pathologist goes along with AJCC while we are having to code with SEER rules.
","1) Assign /3 to mucosal carcinoid, unless stated to be in situ in the final diagnosis. ICD-O-3 is the reference for assigning the behavior code, not AJCC, EOD or CS.
2) The ICD-O-3 code for carcinoid of the sigmoid colon is C187 8240/3. This is reportable to SEER based on the final diagnosis above. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis.
","2005" "20051072","Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: Should CS Extension be coded to 22 [Involvement of spleen PLUS lymph node(s) BELOW the diaphragm] or 32 [Involvement of spleen PLUS lymph node(s) on both sides of the diaphragm] for the biopsy proven lymphoma in a retroperitoneal mass and a CT of the chest with nodes described as ""indeterminate"" or ""calcified""? See Discussion.","It was diagnosed on CT-guided biopsy of retroperitoneal mass: obtained access to the posterior aspect of the lesion adjacent to the left side of the spinal column at approx the level of the kidney.
CT Abdomen/Pelvis: Large low attenuation & smooth walled regions in hilum of the spleen & into the splenic parenchyma w/assoc smaller lesions in the spleen. Associated adenopathy on left side of aorta between the superior mesenteric artery & renal vein.
Body of report: Soft tissue mass 4.4 x 4.8 x 7cm adjacent to the left side of the aorta & spanning the distance betw superior mesenteric vein inferiorly to level of left renal vein, appears to be matted adenopathy.
CT Chest: indeterminate nodes in pretracheal region w/calcified nodes in infracarinal region, right perihilar region & calcifications in pulmonary parenchyma of right lung. Calcified nodes & other structures suggest healed granulomatous process. However, with the infarct/mass lesion in the spleen & left periaortic adenopathy, extension of this process to the mediastinum can't be excluded.
","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 the primary site C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes]. Assign CS extension code 22 [Involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below diaphragm]. The description from the chest CT is not sufficient to code lymph node involvement above the diaphragm.
","2005" "20051070","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which category has priority when both apply, ""Regional lymph nodes, NOS"" or ""Stated as N_, NOS""? See Discussion.","Example: When there is a clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis for a breast primary on a physical exam ""Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement"", as well as a clinical N1 designation, do we code as 60 [Axillary LNS, NOS] or 26 [Stated as N1, NOS]?","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.For the example provided, assign code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s)...] for ""Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement."" Code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS] is the least specific and would not be used in this case because axillary nodes are defined in code 25. Code 26 is for cases in which ""N1, NOS"" documented by the physician is the only information available.
","2005" "20051069","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Pineal Gland: In Collaborative Stage, how is positive cerebral spinal fluid coded?","","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 CS Mets at DX code 40 [Distant metastases] for a pineal gland primary with positive cerebral spinal fluid.
","2005" "20051068","CS Extension--Retinoblastoma: When the degree of extension differs between the retinas, how is extension coded for simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?","","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 the CS extension code that corresponds to the greatest level of extension seen in either eye, excluding information from enucleation.
Record extension based on enucleation in Site Specific Factor 1.
Record bilateral disease under laterality. For retinoblastomas, bilaterality is not a component or consideration for staging.
","2005" "20051067","Reportability--Lung: Is sclerosing hemangioma of the lung with multiple regional lymph nodes metastases reportable?
","","No, it is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours, sclerosing hemangioma ""behaves in a clinically benign fashion...Reported cases with hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement do not have a worse prognosis.""
","2005" "20051066","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Explain the difference among SSF4 prostate codes 150 [No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown], 510 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension], and 550 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown].
","","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.Site Specific Factor 4 captures the status of clinical apex involvement and prostatectomy apex involvement. The first digit in codes 110-550 indicates the clinical status of apex involvement. The second digit indicates apex involvement found at prostatectomy. The third digit is always zero. For both first and second digits, the codes and definitions are the same:
1 - No involvement of prostatic apex
2 - Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS
3 - Arising into prostatic apex
4 - Extension into prostatic apex
5 - Apex extension unknown
Code 150 = No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown
Code 510 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension
Code 550 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown
","2005" "20051065","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is a 2004 ""malignant melanoma, nodular type, epithelioid cell type"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8771 [Epithelioid cell melanoma]. Code the cell type when specified.
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.
","2005" "20051064","Cancer-Directed Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Is ""infrared coagulation"" coded as surgery or ""other"" treatment for anal canal primaries?","","Do not code infrared coagulation -- it is not treatment for cancer.","2005" "20051063","Primary Site/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Lung: How are these fields coded when a chest CT for lung cancer documents multiple masses in different lobes of the lung? See Discussion.","Example
Chest CT: ""Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease.""
The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.
Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL?
","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.Based on the information provided:
Code primary site C349 [Lung]. Code laterality 1 [Right]. Code CS Tumor Size 999 [Unknown]. Code CS Extension 65 [Separate tumor nodules, same lobe]. Code CS Mets at Dx 39 [Separate tumor nodule in contralateral lung].
","2005" "20051062","Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: How is the use of a Laserscope Niagara laser (modulated KTP-YAG laser beam (Niagara 122 prostate vaporization)) coded for prostate primaries? See Discussion.","The Laserscope Niagara laser performs an operation similar to the TURP, but there is virtually no bleeding and patients can sometimes go home the same day, most without a catheter. The laser is delivered through a fiber (the thickness of hair) into the cavity via an endoscope inserted through the urethra.","When performed as part of the first course of therapy, assign surgery code 15 [Laser ablation] to Niagara laser photovaporization of the prostate.","2005" "20051061","CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded when there is no description of a primary lung tumor, lymph node biopsies are negative, but biopsy of a ""level 7 mass"" is positive for squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion.","Example: Chest CT: Enlarging subcarinal mass, 3.4 cm, is most likely malignant adenopathy or perhaps primary tumor. The clinician subsequently described a patient history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. He stated that a PET scan revealed multifocal thoracic disease consistent with stage 3B carcinoma. This was followed by mediastinoscopy with lymph node biopsies (all negative) but the biopsies of ""level 7 mass and subcarinal level 7 mass"" showed squamous cell carcinoma.","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.If this case is determined to be a lung primary, code the CS fields:
CS Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown]
CS Extension: 99 [Primary tumor cannot be assessed]
CS Lymph Nodes: 20 [Subcarinal lymph node involvement] based on positive level 7 biopsy, history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and subcarinal ""adenopathy"" per CT.
","2005" "20051059","Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term ""Pancoast tumor, NOS"" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
","","Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
","2005" "20051058","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Rectum: How are rectal biopsies with the histology of ""poorly differentiated carcinoma with mixed basaloid and squamous features"" coded if, per the SEER site/histology validation table, the histology 8094/3 [basosquamous carcinoma] histology cannot be coded to the rectum for the primary site?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code primary site C209 [rectum] and histology 8094/3 [basosquamous carcinoma]. As of 6/9/2003, this is no longer an impossible site/histology combination.
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.
","2005" "20051056","Histology (Pre-2007)--Sarcoma: How is ""acral myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma"" coded?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8811/3 [Fibromyxosarcoma] according to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. WHO defines myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) as ""a unique low grade sarcoma with myxoid stroma, inflammatory infiltrate and virocyte-like cells that predominantly involves the hands and feet.""
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.
","2005" "20051055","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Lung: In which CS field is a focus of squamous cell carcinoma in the soft tissue coded for a lung primary? See Discussion.","Final Pathologic Diagnosis:
1. Right upper lobe mass, lobectomy: Extensive well differentiated squamous cell carcinoma
2. Right hilar lymph nodes: No tumor identified in nine hilar lymph nodes. A focus of squamous carcinoma is present in soft tissue
","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 a separate focus of squamous cell carcinoma in soft tissue in the CS Mets at DX field. Use this field to capture discontinuous metastasis. Code CS Mets at DX as 40 [Distant mets except distant lymph nodes] for the case described above.
","2005" "20051054","CS Eval--Ovary: How is CS Mets Eval coded when the patient has positive pleural effusion confirmed by cytology?","","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 CS Mets Eval for the example above 3 [path exam of metastatic tissue] assuming there has been no pre-treatment. Positive cytology is required for confirmation of pleural effusion for an ovarian primary.
","2005" "20051053","Reportability/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology--Anus: How many primaries exist if an 11/7/03 anal lesion presents with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring features and extensive mucin production and the 1/9/04 wide excision has adenocarcinoma and Paget disease (intraepidermal adenocarcinoma) extends to skin margin?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is a single primary: the adenocarcinoma with the Paget representing intraepithelial extension of the process. Tumor cells can invade from their place in the epithelium into the underlying stroma either at the primary site, or at their extension site (skin).
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.
","2005" "20051052","CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded for a glioblastoma multiforme occurring in a 3.5 cm tumor in the parietal lobe and a 3.0 cm tumor in the occipital lobe?","","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.
CS Extension code is 10 [confined to cerebral hemisphere]. Record the size of the largest lesion in CS Tumor Size. Both the occipital and parietal lobes are supratentorial and confined to the cerebral hemisphere with no mention of crossing midline or involvement of ventricles.
","2005" "20051051","CS Lymph Nodes/Reg LN Pos/Exam: Is a final pathologic diagnosis of ""Level 8 lymph node: Fibroadipose tissue containing a minute lymphoid aggregate, negative for malignancy"" a lymph node for the purpose of coding these fields?
","","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. ""Fibroadipose tissue containing minute lymphoid aggregate"" qualifies as a lymph node. Include in count as one lymph node examined in the example above assuming this is regional to the primary site.
","2005" "20051050","CS Tumor Size--Breast: Is the largest focus or the total area coded for tumor size in a patient presenting with ""scattered foci of DCIS, largest focus measuring 0.6cm. DCIS spans a total area of 2.1cm.""","","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 the size of the largest focus in CS tumor size. Code the tumor size for this case as 006 (6mm or 0.6cm).
","2005" "20051049","Reportability/Primary Site--Head & Neck: If a wedge resection/shield resection is performed on the lower lip for SCCA and the path report refers to ""lip, NOS"" with no mention of vermilion border, is this case reportable?","","Review the operative and pathology reports, and the physical exam for mention of ""mucosal surface"" (reportable) or ""skin"" (not reportable). If neither are mentioned, lip, NOS is reportable per the ICD-O-3 code of C009.","2005" "20051048","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.
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.
","2005" "20051047","First Course Treatment--Immunotherapy: Is anti-thymocyte globulin coded as immunotherapy?","","Do not code anti-thymocyte globulin as cancer treatment. Anti-thymocyte globulin is used to treat transplant rejection.","2005" "20051046","Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.
","Example 1: Peripheral smear states: ""No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia.""
Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression"".
Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.
Molecular diagnostic study: ""fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion.""
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.
Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.
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.
","2005" "20051045","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are small isolated tumor emboli occasionally found in lymph node capsular or pericapsular lymphatics sufficient to code as a lymph node metastasis?","","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 ""small isolated tumor emboli"" in the pericapsular lymphatics detected by H&E that are less than 0.2 mm as 05 [Regional lymph node(s) with ITC's detected on routine H & E stains].
","2005" "20051044","CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Colon: For a patient with both a prostate and colon primary, if the pathology report indicates that 2 of the 3 regional lymph nodes to the colon are positive for a prostate malignancy, how should these fields be coded for the colon 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.For the colon primary, code Reg LN Pos 00 [all nodes negative]. Code Reg LN Exam 03 [three nodes examined].
Three lymph nodes were examined and found to be negative for metastatic colon cancer.
","2005" "20051043","First Course Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: How is radiofrequency ablation for lung primaries coded?","","Assign code 15 [Local tumor destruction, NOS] in the Surgery of Primary Site field. RFA is a technique where a probe placed in or near a tumor sends radio waves into the tumor, causing it to heat up and kill the cancer cells. RFA doesn't fit neatly into code 12 or 13, so we are left with the NOS code.","2005" "20051042","Histology (Pre-2007)/Diagnostic Confirmation: Which histology code is preferred if the CBD brushing is positive for malignant cells, cytologically most consistent with ductal adenocarcinoma [8500/3], and the common hepatic artery lymph node biopsy has metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8160 [Cholangiocarcinoma]. Code from the pathology specimen when available. In this case, the only pathology is from the lymph node specimen.
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.
","2005" "20051041","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is histology coded if the final diagnosis is ""melanoma"" and only in the comment section of the pathology report is there an indication of ""Type: Lentigo Maligna. Cell Type: Small Cell""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology as 8742 [lentigo maligna melanoma]. Code the specific histologic type, even if stated only in the comment section.
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.
","2005" "20051040","Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the correct topography code for a partial lung lobectomy with pathology diagnosis of ""pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation""? See Discussion.","Operative report: palpable 2x2cm mass in the mediastinal surface of the rt middle lobe and the contiguous upper lobe together.
Path comment after partial lung lobectomy: In all likelihood this is a malignant process occurring in smooth muscle changes surrounding vessels within the lung versus an undifferentiated epithelial tumor.
ADDENDUM DX: low grade pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation.
Consultant's report concurs with that of the original pathologist's report of malignant neoplasm compatible with smooth muscle origin.
","This case is unique. Assign topography code C493 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax]. Based on the information provided, this sarcoma has smooth muscle differentiation and originated in the muscle. Code the primary site to muscle.","2005" "20051039","2004 SEER Manual Errata/Cancer-Directed Therapy: Is the phrase ""cancer directed therapy"" still applicable?","","Remove the phrase ""cancer-directed therapy"" from pages 174 and 175 of the 2004 SEER manual.","2005" "20051038","First Course Treatment--Prostatic Urethra: Is Lupron coded for a papillary carcinoma of the prostatic urethra that is treated with a TUR with fulguration and beam radiation even though the prostate biopsies are negative?","","Do not code lupron as treatment for a primary in the prostatic urethra.","2005" "20051037","CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score be taken from a TNM form in the record? If so, what score would we code for ""low"" (0-1 points) and ""high"" (4-5 points)?","","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, the IPI score from the TNM form can be used to code SSF 3. Without further information, code ""low"" as 000 [0 points]. Code ""high"" as 004 [4 points].
","2005" "20051036","Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?","","Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.
Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The ""day"" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.
","2005" "20051035","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a case of astrogliosis meet the criteria for gliomatosis cerebri? See Discussion.","Case clinically stated to be a glioma of the brain. Pathology from resection states astrogliosis.
Anderson's Pathology defines astrogliosis as astrocytic proliferations. Gliomatosis cerebri is defined as diffuse neoplastic transformation of poorly differentiated astrocytes over a wide area; predominantly invovles hemispheric white matter.
","The pathologic diagnosis for this case, astrogliosis, is not reportable to SEER. Take the definitive diagnosis for this case from the pathology report from the resection. The pathology report takes precendence over the clinical diagnosis.","2005" "20051034","Date Therapy Initiated/Reason no treatment--Lymphoma: Is the date of the lymph node biopsy used as the date of treatment if the lymph node biopsy is the first treatment or the only treatment performed? Is the reason for no surgery coded to 0 [Surgery of the primary site was performed]?","","For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008, enter the date of the lymph node biopsy (excisional biopsy or biopsy NOS) as the Date Therapy Initiated for a lymphoma when the biopsy is the first or only therapy performed.
Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site as 0 [Surgery of the primary site was performed] and the biopsy of a lymph node is coded to 25 in Surgery to Primary Site.
Do not code a fine needle aspiration or core needle biopsy in Surgery of Primary Site.
","2005" "20051033","CS Site Specific Factor--Melanoma: What is the correct code for measured thickness in SSF 1 for a melanoma of the choroid without an enucleation? See Discussion.","CS Site Specific Factor 1 for melanoma of the choroid codes ""Measured Thickness (Depth), Breslow's Measurement."" The note for this field states ""Record actual measurement in millimeters from the pathology report."" For melanoma of the eye, there is often only an eye exam report stating the thickness. Can PE thickness (clinical statement only) be coded for SSF 1 or is this field coded only from pathology? (i.e., all cases treated without enucleation would have this field coded to 999)","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 SSF 1 999 [Unknown] when there is no enucleation, and therefore, no pathology report for a choroid melanoma.
","2005" "20051032","Reportability/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How is a brain ""neoplasm"" diagnosed only by CT scan reported to SEER? See Discussion.","We have a significant number of patients who come into our emergency room and are diagnosed with a brain neoplasm by CT scan. They are transferred to another facility for further care. Some of those facilities will give us information - histology, treatment, etc. Some will not. How are we supposed to report these brain neoplasms if we don't know if they are benign or malignant? Can we report them as behavior code 9 or do we just report them as benign if we can't get any further information?","The case above is reportable and 8000/1 is the most appropriate histology/behavior code. A clinical diagnosis alone from diagnostic imaging reporting a brain 'neoplasm' (with a diagnosis date supporting the reportable case requirements) even with no other information available (from biopsy or resection) is reportable. Care should be taken when reviewing terms used by the radiologist on these reports, since some tumors exhibit defining characteristics that can be picked up on diagnostic imaging.","2005" "20051030","CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?","","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 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.
","2005" "20051028","Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma?","","In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004.","2005" "20051027","Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: If the only indication of grade for a bladder primary is ""grade 2, NOS,"" and we do not know the grading system being used by the pathologist, is the numeric grade 2 coded?","","See the General Coding Rules on page 92 of the 2004 SEER Manual for instructions about coding grade.
If the only information available is ""Grade 2,"" assign code 2 [Grade II].
","2005" "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.","2005" "20051025","Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are ""lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion"" and ""Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat"" reportable?
","","Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma.
","2005" "20051024","Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Should a leiomyosarcoma be coded to the site of ""uterus"" or ""myometrium""?","","Code the primary site of a uterine leiomyosarcoma to C542 [Myometrium].","2005" "20051023","Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.
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.
","2005" "20051022","Primary Site--Breast: Would a tumor described as located ""lower central"" be coded to C501 (central) or C508 overlapping (lower)?","","Code the primary site C501 [Central portion of breast]. Based on the description above, the tumor is located in the central portion of the breast.","2005" "20051021","Primary Site--Breast: If a patient has multifocal tumors all in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, is the primary site coded to C-504 because all of the tumors are in UOQ or would the site be coded to C509 to reflect the fact that multiple tumors exist?","","Code the primary site to C504 [Upper outer quadrant]. All disease is located in one quadrant, code that quadrant. When disease involves two or more quadrants and the point of origin cannot be determined, code C509 [Breast, NOS]. See 2004 SEER manual, page C-470 for instructions about invasive and in situ in different quadrants.","2005" "20051020","CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion.","In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones.","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.
First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage.
If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated].
","2005" "20051019","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How is this field to be coded if the pathologist staged the case pN1a and the lymph node is stated to be negative on H&E, is .3 cm on IHC stain for pancytokeratin but on review of smears shows no malignant cells?","","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 CS Lymph Nodes as negative [00]. The positive stain for pancytokeratin is contradicted by the statement ""malignant cells are not identified."" See also sinq 20010055.
","2005" "20051018","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Must there be a statement of ""moveable"" present to code 25 in this field and if a lymph node is not stated to be ""fixed"" is it presumed to be moveable? Please provide an example in your answer of when to use code 25.","","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 word ""movable"" does not have to be used to assign code 25. A ""movable"" lymph node is an involved lymph node not described as fixed or matted. The general rule is to code the lesser or lower category, which would be the case if neither movability nor fixation is mentioned. See page C-471 of the 2004 SEER Manual.
Code 25 Example: Involved lymph nodes per lymph node dissection. No mention of fixation or matting. Size of largest met within a lymph node is 4mm.
","2005" "20051017","CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Is it better to code to 26 [Stated as N1, NOS] or 28 [Stated as N2, NOS] instead of 60 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS; Lymph nodes, NOS] when the only information in the medical record is the TNM N1 or N2 physician stage?","","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. When the only indication of lymph node involvement is the physician's N category from TNM, code the numerically lowest equivalent CS Lymph Nodes code for that N category.
In the breast schema, CS Lymph Nodes code 26 corresponds to N1, NOS and code 28 corresponds to N2, NOS.
","2005" "20051015","Priorities/CS Tumor Size--Breast: What is the priority order used in coding tumor size for this site when there is a larger 2 cm lesion noted on the PET scan and smaller sizes described in the pathology report as two malignant masses one measuring 0.8 cm and the second measuring 1.0 cm per the GROSS?","","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 CS Tumor Size as 1.0 cm. The pathology report is the highest priority source for coding tumor size. When multiple tumors are present, code the size of the largest tumor.
","2005" "20051013","Reportability/In Situ--Prostate: Was there a time period when PIN III was reportable to SEER?","","Per the 2004 SEER Manual, page 2, Reportable Diagnoses, Exceptions, 1.b.iii ""Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) of the prostate (C619). (Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 and later.)""","2005" "20051012","Reportability: Are malignant tumors of genital skin reportable? On page 1 of the 2004 SEER Manual, Reportable Diagnoses, 1.b.i. Exceptions: malignant and invasive histologies not required by SEER - Skin. There is no longer a note that states that lesions ARE reportable for skin of the genital sites. Has SEER discontinued the collection of malignant skin tumors of the genital sites OR is the manual in error?","","The histologies listed in the exception on page 1 are NOT reportable when the topography code is C440-C449. The manual specifically lists the topography codes in 1.b.1. Diagnoses with the listed histologies ARE reportable when the topography code is NOT C440-C449. Genital skin sites are not coded C440-C449 so a note is not needed.","2005" "20051011","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When there are no lymph nodes removed and none palpable for an inflammatory breast cancer and the physician stages the case Nx, is the CS Lymph Node field code to 00 [None, no regional lymph nodes involved] or 99 [Unknown, not stated] and would SSF 4 and 5 be coded to 000 [Regional lymph nodes negative...] or 888 [Not applicable]?","","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 CS Lymph Nodes 00 [clinically negative]. See note 3 for CS Lymph Nodes.
Code SSF 4 and 5 000 [Nodes clinically negative].
","2005" "20051010","Primary Site/Priorities--Breast: When there are conflicting references to subsite in different reports, which report has priority? See Discussion.","The clinical site of the palpable mass is outer quadrant. The pathologist states inflammatory breast cancer located in the central breast. Should the site be coded to C501 for central breast, C509 for inflammatory breast ca, or C508 for outer quadrant?","Code the breast subsite from the pathology report (C501, central).
The priority order for coding subsite from conflicting reports is
1. Pathology report
2. Operative report
3. Physical examination
4. Mammogram, ultrasound
The primary site of inflammatory breast carcinoma is coded to C509 when there is no palpable tumor.
","2005" "20051008","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is a ""noninvasive papillary carcinoma, solid type, of the breast"" coded to 8503/2 [noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8230/2 [Intraductal carcinoma, solid type]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma]. ""Solid"" is one of four subtypes of intraductal papillary carcinoma. The other subtypes are cribriform, micropapillary and spindle cell. ICD-O-3 does not provide codes for each intraductal papillary subtype, so code to intraductal papillary carcinoma.
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.
","2005" "20051007","CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for a 1.5 cm clinically palpable tumor that appeared to be a cyst with a papilloma when the partial mastectomy Path Micro stated the lesion was an ""intraductal papilloma with focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma""? See Discussion.","Should the size be coded to 999 [unknown] because the noninvasive papillary carcinoma is described only as ""focal"" and is not measured and it is not known how much of the tumor is benign and how much is in situ. Or would the size be coded to the size of the palpable mass, 1.5 cm?","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 CS tumor size as 999 [unknown]. Size of the focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma is not stated.
","2005" "20051006","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: How is histology coded for the tumor(s) that exist when the thyroidectomy addendum diagnosis is ""Morphologic and IHC evaluations reveal two tumors: papillary thyroid carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma."" See Discussion.","The original final diagnosis after a thyroidectomy is ""papillary carcinoma of the thyroid with an adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated."" Per the additional addendum comment: ""The findings can be interpreted in one of 2 different ways. Either there is a collision tumor of papillary thyroid and squamous cell carcinoma (with the squamous cell ca originating at a site other than the thyroid gland.) Or, less likely, there is a malignant squamous differentiation in the papillary thyroid carcinoma."" A university hospital consultation report states the diagnosis as: ""Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma arising in association and from papillary carcinoma, predominantly tall cell variant..."" Is this 2 thyroid primaries: 8344/3 [papillary carcinoma, tall cell] and 8074/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, spindle cell]?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Our pathologist consultant agrees with the consultant's diagnosis. Therefore, abstract this as one primary of the thyroid. Code the histology as 8344 [Papillary tall cell]. This is the most appropriate histology code available for this complex 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.
","2005" "20051003","CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion.","4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]?","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.
Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement.
","2005" "20051002","CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: How are these fields coded for a tumor stated to have only in situ disease in the breast with bone metastasis identified on scan? See Discussion.","4/20/04 Quadrantectomy: ""Tumor involves a significant portion of the biopsy and is estimated at 10 cm in greatest dimension."" The only other mention of size is from imaging studies which is 3.5 cm. The histology is ""high grade ductal carcinoma with comedo necrosis. No invasive carcinoma identified."" Bone scan on 4/20/04 shows ""widespread metastatic disease to bone."" By rule the behavior code for this case is changed to malignant.","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 tumor size as 100 [10 cm]. Size from pathology or operative report is preferred over size from imaging.
Code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and proportions of in situ and invasive not known.]
There is invasive tumor present (as proven by the bone metastasis), but the size and proportion of the invasive component is unknown.
Please note: Extension must be coded at least to 10 [Confined to the breast tissue and fat including nipple and areola; Localized, NOS] in this case. Do not assign extension code 00 [in situ].
","2005" "20051001","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: How is histology coded for the tumor(s) that exist if a left upper lobe of lung resection final diagnosis states the patient has a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and the path indicates there are ""multiple carcinoid tumorlets""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Histology is coded 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma]. This is one reportable tumor of the left lung. According to our pathologist consultant, the tumorlets are collections of cells which appear to be of neuroendocrine origin, but are not malignant.
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.
","2005" "20041104","Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What is the correct histology code for this tumor of the bladder? See Discussion.","TURBT was performed with invasive residual tumor remaining - path report reads ""Mixed carcinoma of the urinary bladder, with components of invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma, invading deep muscle, and small cell carcinoma.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code combined small cell carcinoma [8045]. This mixed carcinoma is both urothelial and small cell. It is important to capture the small cell information in the code because the prognosis for small cell is different from pure urothelial carcinoma.
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.
","2004" "20041103","Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Sequence Number-Central -- Ovary: How are these fields coded for a ""serous tumor of low malignant potential"" when lymph nodes are discovered to be involved?","","For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
This ovarian tumor is not SEER reportable if diagnosed between 2001-2006. The histology and behavior codes are 8442/1 [serous cystadenoma, borderline malignancy]. Sequence is coded appropriately from 60-88 [non-malignant tumor or central registry-defined neoplasm].
The behavior code could be changed to /3 only when the pathologist states that the disease is malignant. Approximately 20% of serous tumors of low malignant potential have lymph node involvement, according to the WHO Classification of Ovarian Tumours. In ovarian serous tumors of low malignant potential, lymph node involvement is not always equivalent to metastasis and does not signify malignancy in these tumors unless definitely stated as such by the pathologist.
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.
","2004" "20041102","CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded when a core needle biopsy removes the majority of the tumor? See Discussion.","Rule 4.j on page 128 of the 2004 SEER Manual states ""Do not code the tumor size from a needle biopsy unless no residual tumor is found on further resection"".
Example: 3/04/04 core biopsy Rt breast grade 1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma tumor size 0.8cm. 3/10/04 Lumpectomy: 3mm focus of residual infiltrating ductal carcinoma. If we can not take the size of the core needle biopsy, do we use the residual size of 3mm or the clinical size which was 1cm on mammogram?
","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 the tumor size from the mammogram. Do not code the tumor size from the needle biopsy because residual tumor was present in the lumpectomy specimen.
","2004" "20041100","Sequence Number-central/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): What criteria are to be used to determine which primary site carries a worse prognosis? Should we take survival into consideration? See Discussion.","In the case of two or more simultaneously diagnosed primary tumors, instructions in the SEER manual state that the tumor with the worse prognosis is to be assigned the lower sequence number. Prognosis decisions should be based on primary site, histology and extent of disease.
Stage as a criteria for decision making is fairly straightforward. On the other hand, decisions based on primary site seem to be more subjective than objective.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Compare the combination of the primary site, histology and extent of disease for each primary, and assign the lowest sequence number to the primary with the worst prognosis. Do not use primary site or histology alone to determine prognosis in the case of assigning sequence number. Survival is a component of prognosis.
If there is no difference in prognosis, assign the sequence numbers in any order.
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.
","2004" "20041099","First Course Treatment: If a patient makes a blanket refusal of all recommended therapy or refuses all treatment before any therapy was recommended, are only immunotherapy and hematologic/endocrine therapies to be coded as refused (code 87)? Or should all treatment modalities be coded as refused if a patient makes a blanket refusal? Or should none of the treatment modalities be coded as refused because we do not know what would have been recommended? See Discussion.","Coding instructions for immunotherapy and for hematologic/endocrine procedures state that Code 87 is to be assigned if either of the following circumstances apply: 1) If the patient made a blanket refusal of all recommended treatment. 2) If the patient refused all treatment before any was recommended. These instructions are not included for other treatment modalities.","When the patient refuses treatment, the first course of therapy is no treatment. Code all treatments as refused.","2004" "20041098","Histology--Prostate: We are seeing numerous pathology reports with the following diagnosis: ""Conventional (acinar) prostatic adenocarcinoma (M81403)."" What is the correct histology code?","","For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007, assign histology code 8550/3 [Acinar adenocarcinoma].","2004" "20041097","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a skull tumor schwannoma an intracranial reportable benign tumor if the physician states it arose in the occipital nerve?
","","No. These schwannomas are not intracranial and therefore, are not reportable to SEER. The occipital nerve is not one of the 12 intracranial nerves (i.e., Abducens, Auditory (vestibulocochlear), Facial, Glossopharyngeal, Hypoglossal, Oculomotor, Olfactory, Optic, Spinal Accessory, Trigeminal, Trochlear, and Vagus).
","2004" "20041096","Behavior Code--Breast: How is this field coded for a ""non-invasive Paget disease of the breast?"" See Discussion.","Historically, SEER collected Paget Disease of the breast with a behavior code of 3 [invasive]. There is no documentation to support this. The SEER EOD Manual only states that if the code is ""05"" [Pagets disease (without underlying tumor)], the behavior must be a 2 [in situ] or a 3 [invasive].","Code the behavior as /2 [in situ] for noninvasive Paget disease of breast. Noninvasive is a synonym of in situ.
If the pathology report documents that the Paget disease is in situ, the matrix principle in ICD-O allows you to change the behavior code to match the pathologist's statement.
","2004" "20041095","Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignancy described as a ""intracranial squamous cell carcinoma (8070) arising in a previous epidermoid cyst""? See Discussion.","4-5-02 MRI Brain: Enhancing mass is probably a recurrence of the original tumor resected in 1983 (benign). 4-8-02 Gross resection. Lesion was coming up against her brain stem: Removed it grossly.
Path: 4-8-02 Brain tumor, left temporal: SCC arising from a previous epidermoid cyst of the brain. XRT began 4-25-02.
Path states: ""Squamous lesions suspicious for malignant transformation of old epidermal cyst (1983). It has been reported in literature that epidermoid cysts in the brain can undergo a malignant transformation which is what happened in this case.""
It appears the patient has an intracranial epidermoid cyst that is now
giving rise to SCC. Squamous cell carcinoma (8070) of the brain (C71_) fails the edit Primary Site, Morphology-Imposs ICDO3 (SEER IF38).
","Code the primary site to C760 [Ill-defined site; Head, face or neck, NOS]. There is an intracranial malignancy arising from a previously resected epidermoid cyst. Squamous cell carcinoma, primary of the brain, is a non-overridable edit error.","2004" "20041094","CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Paget disease with underlying DCIS. How should CS Extension, SEER Summary Stage 2000, histology, and behavior be coded?","","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.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based only on the information provided above,
1. The CS extension code is 07 [Paget disease of nipple (without underlying invasive carcinoma pathologically)].
2. The SS 2000 stage is 1 [Localized].
3. The histology code is 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal carcinoma of breast]. The behavior code is 3 [Malignant].
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.
","2004" "20041093","Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?","","If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.","2004" "20041092","CS Extension--Bladder: How would the following statements be coded for bladder extension -- Code 03 [inferred description of non-invasion] vs code 15 [invasive confined to subepithelial connective tissue]. See Discussion.","1) no smooth muscle invasion
2) no muscle invasion
3) without muscle invasion
4) no invasion of muscularis propria
","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.
For cases diagnosed in 2004 and later code CS extension:
1) no smooth muscle invasion -- 15
2) no muscle invasion -- 15
3) without muscle invasion -- 15
4) no invasion of muscularis propria -- 03
","2004" "20041091","Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion.","CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.
If the physician stated ""this is bulky disease"" would that change the EOD?
","For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided:
The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes].
Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS].
Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs.
A physician description of ""bulky disease"" would not change the EOD for this case.
","2004" "20041090","CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Lung: How are these fields coded for bilateral pleural effusion for a right lung primary? A code of 72 in the CS Extension field leads to a T4, but bilateral pleural effusion is M1. Should CS Mets at Dx be coded 39?","","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.
For bilateral malignant pleural effusion, code the ipsilateral malignant effusion in CS Extension and the contralateral malignant effusion in CS Mets at Dx. Assuming the bilateral pleural effusion is the furthest extension in this case, code CS Extension to 72 [Malignant pleural effusion]. Code CS Mets at Dx to 40 [Distant mets, NOS].
","2004" "20041089","Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia, grade 2 reportable? See Discussion.
","Path report reads: Lobular neoplasia, grade 2.
According to the AFIP nomenclature for DCIS (taken from the WHO terminology), this would be the equivalent of LCIS. But nowhere can I find this specifically applies to lobular in the same way that ductal neoplasia is treated.
","According to the editors of ICD-O-3, lobular neoplasia grade 2 is not equivalent to LCIS. It is not a reportable term. Lobular neoplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia are equivalent terms having a three grade system. Only LN/LIN grade 3 would be reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3.
","2004" "20041088","CS Extension/EOD Extension--Renal Pelvis: Primary site is renal pelvis with direct extension to the rt adrenal gland. What is the correct extension code?","","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 CS Extension code 67 [Adrenal gland from renal pelvis] for adrenal extension from renal pelvis -- T4 and regional direct extension.
","2004" "20041087","CS Extension--Head of Pancreas: What code is used to represent extension to the superior mesenteric artery? See Discussion.","In the CS coding scheme for Head of Pancreas, superior mesenteric artery is listed under both code 54 (T3) and 60 (T4).","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 60 for a primary in the head of the pancreas extending to the superior mesenteric artery. CS Extension code 54 should be Superior mesenteric VEIN and code 60 should be Superior mesenteric ARTERY. An errata will be issued by CS. In addition, extension 54 indicates resectable disease and code 60 is not resectable.
","2004" "20041086","Histology (Pre-2007)/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Colon: How are these fields coded if a 3 cm sessile polyp is snared and removed piecemeal during a colonoscopy and the path microscopic description indicates a polypoid lesion with foci of malignant transformation found associated with bundles of smooth muscles followed by a LAR with no residual invasive tumor but the final path diagnosis is stated to be a M.D. adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.","3/04 colonoscopy 3cm sessile polyp snared & removed piecemeal. Path Micro: Polypoid lesion consists of branching & complex neoplastic glands lined by tall columnar epithelial...These foci of malignant transformation are assoicated with large polygonal epithelial...associated with desmoplastic stromal reaction & neoplastic glands can be found associated with bundles of smooth muscle.
4/04 LAR: focus of residual HG dysplasia: no residual invasive tumor. Final path dx: MD adenocarcinoma. Physician staged: T2 N0 M0.
Histology: 8140 vs 8210
Tumor Size: 030 vs 999 vs 990
Extension: 12 vs 20
","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.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based only on information provided:
Histology: 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in a polyp]
Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown]
CS Extension: 20 [Muscularis propria invaded]
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.
","2004" "20041084","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is this one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual.
Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077].
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.
","2004" "20041083","CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.","Rectal primary:
5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.
","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 CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.
","2004" "20041082","Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.","4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.
Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?
","The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement.","2004" "20041081","Reporting Source: Is an ER patient who is diagnosed on peripheral smear with an acute leukemia coded as an outpatient if the patient died while in the process of being admitted for treatment or is the patient coded as a death certificate case?","","Code reporting source as 1 [Hospital Inpatient/Outpatient or Clinic] for the case above. This case will be abstracted using information from the outpatient/ER record (and the death certificate).","2004" "20041080","Behavior Code/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis on pathology indicates that an atypical meningioma invades the brain and the bone flap specimen indicates extensive invasion through the full thickness of the calvarium? See Discussion.
","FDx on the path is: A. Rt frontotemporal brain tumor: Atypical meningioma, WHO grade II (out of III). B. Arachnoid tissue: Atypical meningioma with small focus of invasion into superficial brain and focal perivascular spread. C. Bone flap: Atypical meningioma with extensive invasion through full thickness of the calvarium.
Comment: Although this tumor shows a small focus of brain invasion, it should be considered a grade II (out of III) meningioma based on its histologic atypia (cellularity, sheeting of tumor cells and prominent nucleoli), elevated Ki-67 index and low mitotic rate.
","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.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2004, the example above is a benign meningioma and not reportable to SEER.
For tumors diagnosed 2004 or later, code the behavior as 1 [Borderline malignancy]. Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors].
According to expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being ""malignant.
","2004" "20041079","CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.","","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 CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.
Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.
Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.
","2004" "20041078","Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression ""has the markings of a malignancy"" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.
","12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.
","Do not accession cases using only the term ""has the markings of malignancy."" This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.
Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.
","2004" "20041077","CS Site Specific Factor 1--Colon: If the registrar did not support the CEA code recorded with the appropriate text documentation, should the central registry accept the registrars coding or change the value to 999?","","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.Accept your registrars' codes at your discretion. It is encouraged, but not required, to enter text for CS data elements. These cases do not automatically default to code 999.
","2004" "20041076","CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion.","Code 46 reads ""Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)"".
Would these examples be coded to 46?
Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3.
Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3.
","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 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ.
Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading
Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist.
","2004" "20041075","CS Tumor Size: Can we take the size of a ""polypoid"" mass? See Discussion.","3/04 Colonoscopy: 4 cm semi-circumferential friable mass in sigmoid colon. Path: Tubulovillous adenoma indeterminate for malignancy. 4/04 Sigmoid Colectomy: 5 x 4 polypoid mass: WD Adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma.
Define ""Polypoid"". Size of ""polypoid"" mass. Would the size be coded to 050 or 999?
","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.If the pathology report confirms that the entire polyp is malignant, code the size of the polyp/polypoid mass. If the pathology report does not confirm that the entire polyp is malignant, code 999.
Code tumor size as 999 [Unknown] for the example above. Do not code the size of the polypoid mass in this example. The size given above is the size of the polypoid mass, not the size of the malignancy.
Polypoid means ""Like a polyp.
","2004" "20041074","Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Is the histology coded as adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is adenocarcinoma but the colonoscopy report associated with the path states that the surgeon performed a polypectomy? See Discussion.","Histology: 3/04 Colonoscopy with polypectomy of a sessile appearing polyp. Path report: Final Dx: Adenocarcinoma; Micro: Adenocarcinoma apparently arising from the mucosa...noted to invade the muscularis mucosa into the submucosa.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007
Code this case to adenocarcinoma [8140]. The best source for histology is the final diagnosis on the path report from the procedure that removed the most tumor tissue. When there is a conflict, the path diagnosis has higher priority than the colonoscopy diagnosis for coding histology.
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.
","2004" "20041073","Primary Site/Histology--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis per the pathology report is, ""Soft tissue and skeletal muscle, left thigh--Large B cell lymphoma with polyclonal and mature t-cells, involving the soft tissue""?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Site: C492 [Soft tissue thigh]
Histology: 9680/36 [T-cell rich large B-cell lymphoma]
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.
","2004" "20041072","Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled ""familial adenomatous polyposis"" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.
Look for the term ""Familial adenomatous polyposis,"" FAP or one of its synonyms:
Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]
Familial adenomatous colon polyposis
Familial colonic polyposis
Multiple familial polyposis
In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:
Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system
Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty
History of colectomy
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.
","2004" "20041071","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion.","Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor.
Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)?
Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy.
First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
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.
","2004" "20041070","Primary Site: What would the primary site be for carcinoma of the renal pelvis, status post transplant? Please see details below. See Discussion.","The patient has a renal pelvis urothelial carcinoma confined to the pelvis but is status post renal pelvic transplant of the same renal pelvis.","Code the primary site to renal pelvis [C659]. Code the site in which the primary tumor originated. The transplant status in this example does not affect the primary site.","2004" "20041069","Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a meningioma invading the bone malignant and, therefore, SEER reportable if diagnosed prior to 2004? See Discussion.
","1. Meningothelial meningioma with prominent nuclear pleomorphism, infiltration into dura, calvarium, temporalis skeletal muscle.
Microscopic: Multifocal infiltration by meningothelial tumor...extensive infiltration of trabecular spaces, extension through inner and outer calvarial layers by meningioma...mitotic activity in tumor noted but below the 4 per 10 high power field threshold for diagnosis of atypical meningioma.
2. Aggressive (invasive) transitional type meningioma, neuroimaging and histology imply extensive invasive meningioma involving bone and paraspinal soft tissues. Microscopy:...invaded bone...focal EMA positivity diagnostic of invasive transitional type meningioma... tumor invades bone.
","The two cases above are benign meningiomas and not reportable prior to 2004. According to an expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being ""malignant.""
The WHO Nervous System Tumor Classification states malignant meningioma exibits histological features of frank malignancy far in excess of the abnormalities present in atypical meningioma (WHO grade II). Examples of the histologic features of malignant meningioma are obviously malignant cytology, or high mitotic index (20 or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields). They correspond to WHO grade III and are usually fatal.
","2004" "20041067","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Does 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma], 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] best represent this field for a lung biopsy described as a ""poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with squamous and glandular features with focal mucin positivity per mucin stain""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560/33 [Adenosquamous carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. ""Glandular"" carcinoma is a synonym for adenocarcinoma. Mixed adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is coded to 8560. Do not use code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] when a more specific complex code is available.
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.
","2004" "20041066","Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion.
","A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not.
Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months.
In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report ""metastatic papillary serous adenoca."" Chart now says ""History of stage 3A ovarian cancer.""
","Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided.
","2004" "20041065","Date Therapy Initiated/First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Summary Stage 2000--Prostate: How do you code these fields for a case that received preventative chemo before a definitive cancer diagnosis?","A patient has a ""suspicious but not diagnostic"" biopsy of the prostate in 09/2002. Doctor said it was not cancer and put the patient on a preventative chemo drug study (GTX-211). The patient returned for a repeat biopsy on 04/2003. Biopsy returned positive for adenocarcinoma. The patient had not been diagnosed when chemo was administered. Can the case be staged using the post-chemo information?","Stage this case the same as all other cases. Use only the information subsequent to the date of diagnosis to code stage and treatment.
The diagnosis date in the example is 04/2003. Do not use information prior to 04/2003 to code stage or treatment. Do not code the preventative chemo as treatment.
","2004" "20041064","CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS TS/Ext-Eval--Breast: How do you code these fields when the tumor size and extension differ pre and post treatment with neoadjuvant Arimidex? See Discussion.","Clinically on PE 3 cm mass attached to skin with dimpling and erythema overlying the mass. Ultrasound: 2-3 cm breast mass with overlying skin thickened by US evaluation, suggesting dermal invasion. Neoadjuvant Arimidex followed by MRM. Path: 4.5 cm ductal carcinoma (no DCIS), no invasion of skin.","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.Record the larger tumor size and the farthest extension documented.
Code CS Tumor Size/Extension Evaluation to 6 [Surgical resection performed, WITH pre-surgical systemic treatment...; tumor size/extension based on pathologic evidence].
Code CS Tumor Size for the example to 045 [4.5 cm].
Code CS Extension to 20 [Local skin involvement ...] based on clinical description provided.
","2004" "20041063","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Mediastinum: How do we code these fields for a case described as a ""neuroendocrine carcinoma"" of the ""anterior mediastinum"" without failing the SEER ""impossible"" site/histology combination edit? See Discussion.","Two different facilities state that the patient has ""neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum."" This coded combination failed SEER edit (SEERIF38). We can not correct it because that edit flag does not appear on our system. Both facilities indicate that the mediastinum is the primary. In addition, there is text to support both the histology and primary site codes.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The combination of C381 [anterior mediastinum] and 8246 [neuroendocrine carcinoma] will be removed from the list of ""impossible"" site/histology combinations. There are rare cases of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum. As illustrated in the discussion, verify that the primary site is anterior mediastinum, the histology is neuroendocrine ca, and document those findings in the text.
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.
","2004" "20041062","Histology (Pre-2007): Can we ever code this field using a more specific cell type from a metastatic site specimen rather than to a less specific cell type from the primary site specimen? See Discussion.","The histology for a metastatic deposit biopsy is mucin-producing adenocarcinoma. This report states that the primary site is the stomach. It is more specific than the histology from the stomach biopsy described as adenocarcinoma, NOS.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology for the case example to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma], the more specific histology.
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.
","2004" "20041060","Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a ""proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis"" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?
","","For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is ""melanoma in situ.""
The phrase ""proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis"" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).
","2004" "20041058","Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the primary site coded to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast] or C493 [ Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax ] for a tumor described as a ""high grade soft tissue sarcoma present in the upper outer quadrant of breast""?","","If the sarcoma is primary in the breast, code the primary site to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast]. C500 - C509 includes soft tissue of breast.","2004" "20041055","Primary Site/Grade, Differentiation, Cell indicator--Lymphoma: Will a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 [B-cell] for a lymphoma coded to primary site C80.9 [unknown] fail edits? See Discussion.","Patient had a large mass in chest wall that was excised and found to be large B cell lymphoma. Scans mentioned no involvement of lymph nodes but indicated nodules in the liver thought to be lymphoma as well.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The combination of a primary site C809 with a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 when used for a lymphoma will not fail SEER edits. Avoid coding primary site to C809 when possible. Code primary site for the example above to C761 [Chest wall, NOS]. The chest wall is the only area of involvement, except for ""liver nodules."" Liver is an unlikely primary site for lymphoma.
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.
","2004" "20041054","CS Extension--Prostate: For a tumor that is clinically inapparent, but a biopsy from the prostatic apex is positive, is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)]?","","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. Code CS Extension-Clinical Extension to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)] for clinically inapparent prostate cancer with positive apex biopsy.
","2004" "20041053","CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Can we interpret the in situ component as ""minimal"" when the pathology report states ""1.1 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma and no extensive intraductal component""?","","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. Based on the information provided above, the in situ component is ""mininmal"" for the purpose of coding Breast CS Site Specific Factor 6. The phrase ""no extensive intraductal component"" suggests that there is some intraductal carcinoma present.
","2004" "20041051","First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Colon: Can ""Sandostatin"" be coded for treatment of carcinoid tumors of the colon because it flushes tumor cells from the colon in addition to controlling diarrhea?","","Do not code Sandostatin (Ocreotide Acetate) as treatment. This is an ancillary drug used to treat symptoms of diarrhea. SEER Book 8 is undergoing revision and will include this change.","2004" "20041050","Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: How do you code a procedure described as a ""transanal resection, debulking of a large rectal mass""? See Discussion.","Patient is not a surgical candidate due to ""other medical conditions"". Colonoscopy done for anemia and rectal bleeding. At the colonoscopy a ""Transanal Resection Debulking of large rectal mass"" is performed. Two specimens are sent to the lab. The first is labeled ""rectal mass"" and is a 2.0 cm diameter spherical fragment of tissue. The second is labeled ""transanal debulking rectal mass"" and is described as multiple, irregular shaped fragments of tan, rubbery tissue measuring 5.0 x 5.0 x 3.0 cm. Final path diagnosis: Debulking of rectal mass: Adenocarcinoma greater than 2 cm in size, resection margins positive for tumor.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2002, code Surgery of Primary Site to 20 [Local tumor excision, NOS]. Because the procedure was performed via colonoscopy and apparently did not involve proctectomy, the best choice is a local excision.","2004" "20041049","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is best used to represent a diagnosis of ""metaplastic carcinoma, matrix producing type."" The tumor shows poorly differentiated infiltrating duct carcinoma and myxoid, cartilaginous stroma.","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, metaplastic carcinoma is a type of epithelial breast tumor. Matrix producing carcinoma is a synonym of metaplastic carcinoma. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for matrix producing carcinoma.
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.
","2004" "20041048","Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when a pathologist notes the grade of a tumor is ""mid-differentiated""?","","Code Grade, Differentiation to 2 [Moderately differentiated].","2004" "20041047","Multiple primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Fallopian Tube: How many primaries are coded when endometrioid adenocarcinoma involves bilateral fallopian tubes? See Discussion.","The pathologist states ""because of the intimate association with the luminal line of the fallopian tube it is felt that this represents synchronous primaries rather than mets."" The SEER Code Manual only lists ovary, retinoblastomas, and Wilms Tumors under the bilateral code stated to be a single primary.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Complete two abstracts, one for left fallopian tube and one for right fallopian tube. This case has been determined to be two primaries by the pathologist. Bilateral involvement of paired sites (other than ovary, retinoblastoma and Wilms tumor) with the same histology within two months requires a determination of whether there are one or two primaries. The pathologist in the case above has made this determination.
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.
","2004" "20041046","CS Tumor Size--Breast: When the diagnosis is inflammatory carcinoma of the breast, must the CS tumor size always be 998? See Discussion.
","I have no specific example of a situation; I am writing an edit check and wondering if there would be any exceptions to this rule.","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.No. For inflammatory carcinoma, code the size of the tumor in CS tumor size. Use code 998 [diffuse] when the tumor is stated to be ""diffuse.""
Page 27 in Part I of the CS manual will be corrected to define code 998 for breast as only ""diffuse."" The errata should be distributed in July 2004.
","2004" "20041045","Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What code is used to represent clear cell cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8310/3 [Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS]. This is consistent with the WHO Classification of Tumours and reflects the current practice of placing less emphasis on ""cyst-"" prefix for ovarian malignancies.
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.
","2004" "20041044","EOD-Extension--Breast: If the pathology report states ""infiltrating duct carcinoma...measuring 7mm in diameter...focal areas of intraductal carcinoma,"" do we code this field to 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and in situ described as minimal] or to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and proportions of in situ and invasive not known]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: If 7mm is the measurement of the infiltrating duct portion of this cancer, assign extension code 13 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in Tumor Size].
If 7mm is the size of the whole malignancy and the size of the invasive portion cannot be determined, assign extension code 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. ""Focal areas of in situ carcinoma"" qualifies as minimal.
","2004" "20041043","First Course Cancer-Directed Treatment--Bladder: How should Mitomycin-C instillation for bladder cancer be coded?","","Code the instillation of Mitomycin-C into the bladder for a bladder primary in both the Chemotherapy and Surgery to Primary Site fields. Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. Mitomycin-C is listed in SEER book 8 as a chemotherapeutic drug, specifically an alkylating agent.
Also, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 15 [intravesical therapy]. Code the surgical procedure as well as the type of drug (chemotherapy in this case).
","2004" "20041042","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries, with what histology(ies) should be coded when nephrectomy pathology specimen shows separate tumors of ""renal cell carcinoma [clear cell type]"" and ""renal cell carcinoma [granular cell type]""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract two primaries. This is an example of two tumors with different histologic types in the same site. The right kidney has two separate tumors.
8310/3 [renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type)]
8320/3 [renal cell carcinoma (granular cell type)]
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.
","2004" "20041040","CS Tumor Size--Unknown & ill-defined site: For an unknown primary site, should this field be coded to 000 [No mass/tumor found] or 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record]?","","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 the CS Tumor Size field to 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record] when the primary site is unknown.
There is a discrepancy in Part I of the CS Manual on page 27, rule 5g, which says that primary site C80.9 should be coded as 888 not applicable. The CS Steering Committee has decided that the last line about unknown and ill-defined sites should be deleted from rule 5g. This issue will be addressed in a CS errata to be distributed in July 2004.
","2004" "20041039","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is ""recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is an example of the term ""recurrent"" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.
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.
","2004" "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.","2004" "20041037","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Thyroid: How many primaries, with what histologies should be coded when a thyroidectomy reveals ""anaplastic carcinoma"" and ""papillary carcinoma"" occurring as two separate tumors? See Discussion.","Example: Thyroidectomy revealed anaplastic carcinoma of the thyroid with mets to lymph nodes. The path report stated that the thyroid specimen also contained a small papillary carcinoma. Differentiation for the papillary carcinoma was not stated.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Accession and code as two thyroid primaries:
Anaplastic carcinoma [8021/34]
Papillary carcinoma [8260/39]
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.
","2004" "20041036","Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes, NOS--Colon: What tissue specimens are included under this field's code 41 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy plus resection of contiguous organ; example: small bowel, bladder]? See Discussion.
","How is site specific surgery coded for the following two cases?
Example 1. A right hemicolectomy normally includes a portion of ileum.
Example 2. Subtotal colectomy with bilateral oophorectomy.
","Code 40 includes a right hemicolectomy. A right hemicolectomy normally includes a small portion of the terminal ileum removed with the ileocecal valve. Assign code 41 when resection of CONTIGUOUS organs goes beyond what would normally be removed as part of a subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy. Record non-contiguous organ resection in Surgical Procedure of Other Site.
Example 1: Surgery of Primary Site -- 40 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy].
Example 2: Surgery of Primary Site -- 40 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy]. Surgical Procedure of Other Site -- 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites].
Addendum July 2021
For coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site, see the instructions for determining regional vs distant sites in the 2021 SEER manual under Coding Instructions #6 and #7 on pages 184-185. Do not use Summary Stage to determine regional vs distant for this data item.
","2004" "20041033","Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion.
","Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: ""Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO).""","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists.
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.
","2004" "20041032","Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tongue primary described as ""located on the lateral"" or ""left oral"" tongue? See Discussion.","Case 1. Patient with squamous cell carcinoma, left oral tongue.
Case 2. Squamous cell carcinoma, left lateral tongue.
Case 3. Patient status post biopsy of lesion on tongue. Exam: healing left lateral tongue incision with sutures in place in underside of tongue.
","Code Primary Site for cases 1 and 2 above to C023 [Anterior 2/3 of tongue, NOS]. Code lateral tongue without mention of dorsal or ventral surface to C023 [Anterior 2/3 of tongue, NOS].
Code Primary Site for case 3 to C022 [Ventral surface of tongue]. The underside of the tongue is specified as the site of the biopsy in case 3.
","2004" "20041031","CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded when the pathology states ""papillary transitional cell carcinoma with no invasion into the submucosa or deep muscularis"" but there is ""focal extension of tumor into bladder diverticula""?","","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 the CS Extension field to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma stated to be noninvasive]. Extension into bladder diverticula does not change the code. Diverticula are pouches in the mucosa (mucous membrane).
","2004" "20041030","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this case of squamous cell carcinoma with several different variants? See Discussion.","The path report from a left pneumonectomy says: This squamous cell carcinoma had several different variants present including typical non-keratinizing squamous cell, spindled cell squamous cell, clear cell squamous cell and a small cell variant of squamous cell.
I cannot find a combination code that fits; the majority of the tumor is not stated; so do you code the highest specific type mentioned - 8084 - Squamous cell, clear cell type?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma, NOS]. Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS includes types of squamous cell carcinoma without a specific code. This is a combination squamous tumor that does not have a unique code.
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.
","2004" "20041029","Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms ""bordering on"" and ""may represent"" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
","Pathology report states ""...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ.""
","The terms ""bordering on"" and ""may represent"" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
","2004" "20041026","CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a ""cystic mass"" be coded in this field? See Discussion.","The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.","If the tumor is described as a ""cystic mass"" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.
Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.
","2004" "20041025","Immunotherapy/Chemotherapy: Are monoclonal antibodies, such as Avastin and Erbitux, coded as immunotherapy or chemotherapy? See Discussion.","In review of the ""FDA-approved oncology agents not listed in SEER Book 8"" provided in 5/02, it appears ""monoclonal antibodies"" are coded as immunotherapy.","Code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy because both of these drugs are growth inhibitors. Code growth inhibitors (cytostatic agents) as chemotherapy. Do not assume that monoclonal antibodies are coded as immunotherapy.","2004" "20041024","Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase ""indicative of cancer"" SEER reportable?
","","No. The phrase ""indicative of cancer"" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word ""indicative"" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.
","2004" "20041023","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should ""moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of scar type, intermixed with bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma"" be coded to 8250 [bronchiolo-alveolar adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma of mixed subtypes]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code Histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. This is a single tumor containing both a scar carcinoma and a bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma--use 8255. The synonym for 8255 is adenocarcinoma combined with other types of carcinoma (not just subtypes).
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.
","2004" "20041022","Primary site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior: What is the correct site and histology/behavior for the following diagnosis: ""mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei."" This was diagnosed at e-lap for a separate adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon.","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The appropriate code for mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei is C18.1 8470/0. It is not reportable to SEER. According to our pathologist consultant, mucinous cystadenoma is a legitimate term for such appendiceal tumors. They may implant all over the peritoneum as pseudomyxoma peritonei, especially in the face of perforation, without being histologically malignant.
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.
","2004" "20041021","Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus Uteri: How should this field be coded when the D&C which shows ""adenocarcinoma with mucinous and papillary features"" and the TAH demonstrates only ""endometroid carcinoma""? See Discussion.","Should Histology be coded to 8380 [endometroid adenocarcinoma] because it is the most representative sample or to 8323 [mixed cell adenocarcinoma], per the Complex Morphology Coding Guidelines? The instructions in the Guidelines seem to imply that it is most important to represent combination histologies first, with majority (most representative sample) of tumor having a lower priority.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code Histology based on the pathology report from the most representative tissue. For the example above, code Histology to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma] based on the TAH/BSO pathology report.
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.
","2004" "20041020","EOD-Extension--Sarcoma: How is this field coded for a soft tissue sarcoma that involves the overlying skin?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: It depends on the location of the soft tissue sarcoma. If the tumor is very superficial, code EOD-Extension to 60 [Adjacent organs/structures]. However, if the soft tissue sarcoma is between muscles or ""deep"" according to the AJCC definition, then it would have to grow through the superficial fascia to get to the skin. In this case code EOD-Extension to 80 [Further contiguous extension].","2004" "20041019","EOD-Extension--Lung: Is this field coded to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] or 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] when there is no mention of the mainstem bronchus and a lobectomy is performed? See Discussion.","The clinical work-up shows a mass at the left medial apex extending into the left lung. No mention of the main stem bronchus. Because a lobectomy was performed, we assume, per Note 2, that the tumor was greater than or equal to 2 cm from the carina.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] for the case example. The EOD-Extension code 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] applies to tumors involving the main stem bronchus.","2004" "20041018","Grade, Differentiation: Can grade be assigned based on a thin prep if there is no grade in the other pathology reports? See Discussion.","Example:
Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.
Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp.
","When it is the only source specifying the grade, code grade from the thin prep.","2004" "20041017","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: When isolated tumor cells are found in an axillary lymph node, should lymph node involvement be coded to 0 [no lymph node involvement] or 1 [micrometastasis (less than or equal to 0.2 cm)]?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 2004: Code the EOD-Lymph Node field to 0 [No lymph node involvement] when regional lymph nodes are negative, even if there are positive isolated tumor cells (ITC).","2004" "20041016","CS Site Specific Factor 4--Prostate: If PAP is not mentioned in the chart, should Site Specific Factor 4 be coded to 999 [unknown or no information] or 000 [test not done]?","","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.For tumors diagnosed 2004 only:
Code the CS Site Specific Factor 4 to 999 [Unknown or no information; Not documented in patient record]. If there is no report of a lab test in the health record, code as 999.
Code this field to 000 [Test not done] when there is a statement in the record that a test was not performed.
Tumors diagnosed 1/1/2005 forward no longer have PAP coded in the Site Specific Factor 4 field.
","2004" "20041015","Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should this field be coded when a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is found in the femur and in the soft tissue of the anterior chest wall but all CT scans are negative for lymphadenopathy?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C809 [Unknown primary site]. The primary site of diffuse large B cell lymphoma can be either nodal or extranodal. The case described above is likely extranodal because there is no evidence of lymph node involvement. Because the extranodal site of origin is unknown, code the Primary Site to C809.
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.
","2004" "20041013","Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: Should this field be coded to ovary or peritoneum when the bulk of the tumor is in the peritoneum and there is only surface involvement of the ovary?","","If it is not clear where the tumor originated, use the following criteria to distinguish ovarian primaries from peritoneal primaries.
The primary site is probably ovarian, unless:
--Ovaries have been previously removed
--Ovaries are not involved (negative)
--Ovaries have no area of involvement greater than 5mm.
Descriptions such as ""bulky mass,"" ""omental caking"" probably indicate an ovarian primary.
Descriptions such as ""seeding,"" ""studding,"" ""salting"" probably indicate a peritoneal primary.
","2004" "20041012","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Colon: What is the number of primaries for a case of familial polyposis with at least three separate tumors having invasive adenocarcinoma, one in the rectum? See Discussion.","A patient had a total proctocolectomy and was found to have familial polyposis. At least 3 separate tumors were identified with invasive adenocarcinoma, one of which was in the rectum. Is this 2 primaries: C18.9 with 8220/3 and C20.9 with 8140/3 or is this all one primary cancer?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Familial polyposis is always a single primary. Code the primary site for the case example above to C199 [colon and rectum].
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.
","2004" "20041011","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Should this field be coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] or 30 [Localized, NOS] when the only information is from a biopsy positive pathology report that includes the clinical history of ""PSA elevated, DRE negative,"" with no mention of an ultrasound being performed?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For this scenario, assign code 15 if an ultrasound was not performed, performed and negative, or when it is unknown whether or not an ultrasound was performed. Assign code 30 only if an ultrasound was performed and there is no documentation stating that it was negative or positive.
Please refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines for all of the instructions pertaining to the coding of prostate EOD.
","2004" "20041010","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should we abstract when Single Versus Subsequent Primaries table indicates one primary but special pathological studies indicate two primaries? See Description.","The patient had a malignant lymphoma, large B cell (9680) diagnosed in 2000. In 2003, he came in and had a spleen biopsy which showed follicular lymphoma (9690). These are the same NHL, according to the table lookup. However, the pathologist states in 2003, ""Special stains now show a kappa clonal lymphoma. Since the first diagnosis was a lambda monoclonal lymphoma, this is not felt to be a recurrence of the original lymphoma.""","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract the example above as two primaries. Hematologic malignancies (including lymphoma) and solid tumors are handled differently when determining the number of primaries. For hematologic malignancies, take the physician's opinion into account. Use the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table as an aid when there is insufficient information available.
For solid tumors, follow the multiple primary rules in the SEER Program Code Manual.
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.
","2004" "20041009","Diagnostic Confirmation--Lymphoma: Can lymphoma be diagnosed clinically? See Description.","Example 1: Patient with B symptoms. Physical exam reveals large neck mass. Physician impression is lymphoma.
Example 2: CT scans show lymphadenopathy consistent with lymphoma.
In both cases, patient does not return for biopsies.
","Yes, lymphoma can be accessioned based on a clinical diagnosis.
Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 1 as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 2 as 7 [Radiography and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation].
","2004" "20041007","Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How is this field coded when transfusions are used to treat acute leukemia or thrombocythemia?","","Transfusions are NOT recorded as treatment for acute leukemia or thrombocythemia. .","2004" "20041006","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: How is date of diagnosis coded when metastases consistent with a bladder primary are found more than a year after a diagnosis of non-invasive bladder cancer? See Description.","A non-invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma is removed by TURB in May 2002. In January 2003, a bone biopsy reveals metastatic transitional cell carcinoma consistent with bladder primary.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code a second bladder primary diagnosed in January 2003.
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.
","2004" "20041005","EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of ""necrotic masses, NOS"" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description.","Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: ""In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4"" mass."" No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code.","2004" "20041003","EOD-Size of Tumor: How is this field coded when the only description is ""greater then 10 cm?""","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: When the only information available is a statement such as ""Greater than 10 cm,"" code tumor size 101 [10.1 cm].","2004" "20041002","CS Size of Tumor/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How should these fields be coded for benign CNS tumors?","","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 CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors]. Code the size of the tumor if specified. Otherwise code CS Tumor Size as 999 for benign CNS tumors.
","2004" "20041001","Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Should pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) be coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ, NOS] or 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ]? See Description.
","There is no specific morphology code for PanIN-III in the ICD-O-3. In the chapter for exocrine pancreas found in the sixth edition of AJCC cancer staging manual, pg 160, reference is made to PanIN-III and its inclusion with carcinoma in situ.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code PanIN-III (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia III) as 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ, includes DIN 3: Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 3]. PanIN-III is a synonym for carcinoma in situ according to the WHO classification of Tumors and the College of American Pathologists' Protocol for exocrine pancreas. Do not code PanIN-I or PanIN-II as cancer.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, see SINQ 20110081 and 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.
","2004" "20031211","EOD-Extension--Thyroid: Is this field coded as involvement of the thyroid capsule if the thyroidectomy path specimen reveals papillary thyroid ca ""tumor present within capsular blood vessels?""
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Tumor present within the blood vessels of the thyroid capsule is localized (extension code 30). The tumor has not penetrated the capsule itself if it is contained within the blood vessels.
Keep in mind that tumor size determines the extent of disease for thyroid extension codes 10, 20, 30 and 40.
","2003" "20031210","Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of ""other treatment""? See Description.","Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions.","SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain.
Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy.
","2003" "20031208","EOD-Extension--Corpus uteri: How should EOD extension be coded when the pathology report shows adenocarcinoma arising in the endometrium with the statement ""no invasive carcinoma identified?""","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code endometrial cancer with no invasion to EOD extension code 11 [Confined to endometrium (stroma)]. ""No invasion"" most likely means no invasion of the myometrium.","2003" "20031207","Hormone Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is hormonal therapy coded for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS? See Description.","Patient with myelodysplastic syndrome refused chemotherapy and was treated with high dose steroids. Patient also received Rituxan.","Hormones, such as glucocorticoids and androgens, are generally of little if any benefit to patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, according to the NCI PDQ. Do not code steroids as treatment in the example above.","2003" "20031206","EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description.","Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis].","2003" "20031205","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded when an autopsy report reveals pathologically involved regional lymph nodes but does not state how many nodes were positive nor how many were examined? See Description.","A final autopsy report described widely disseminated adenocarcinoma, probably lung primary. Metastatic tumor in brain, lungs, and in lymph nodes. The Gross description of the autopsy report stated that there were numerous metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The Micro description of the autopsy report did not add any clarification. In the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, the options for coding number of regional lymph nodes examined are codes 96-98. These codes include descriptions of surgical procedures such as sampling and dissection. How do we code number of regional lymph nodes examined when the pathological examination of lymph nodes was done only at autopsy and not during a surgical procedure?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The rules that apply to the use of pathology reports for EOD coding also apply to autopsy reports.
When a cancer diagnosis is made and positive lymph nodes are discovered on autopsy, in the absence of a stated number of lymph nodes, code the number of lymph nodes positive to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the number of lymph nodes examined to 97 [Regional lymph node removal documented as dissection and number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated]. An autopsy is a dissection.
","2003" "20031204","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for cryosurgery of the breast?","","For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For cryosurgery alone, without a pathology specimen, assign site-specific surgery code 19 [Local tumor destruction, NOS]. Cryosurgery, cryotherapy or cryoablation uses extreme cold to destroy the tumor cells.
If a specimen is sent to pathology use code 20 [Partial mastectomy, NOS] rather than code 19.
If cryosurgery is followed by further surgery, do not use code 19.
","2003" "20031203","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should this field be coded to 45 [wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS], 46 [with margins between 1 and 2 cm], or 47 [with margins greater than 2 cm] for a skin primary diagnosed in 2003 when margins are stated exactly as 2 cm?","","Use code 46 [Wide excision...with margins more than 1 cm and less than 2 cm] when margins are exactly 2 cm.","2003" "20031202","Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a surgery titled ""Parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection""? See Description.","If the operative report is not titled ""total parotidectomy,"" can we assume that less than total parotidectomy was done? Can we assume that ""facial nerve dissection"" and ""facial nerve monitoring"" are other ways of stating ""facial nerve spared""?","Use the best information available to determine whether or not all of the parotid has been removed. It is important to read the entire operative report and review the content of the pathology report. The Op report will usually include wording about how much was removed, and this can be confirmed by the path report. Do not make assumptions about the extent of the surgery based solely on the title used on the operative report.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code 30 [less than total parotidectomy] can be used when the parotid is not totally removed, but the exact type of partial parotidectomy cannot be determined. ""Facial nerve monitoring"" and ""Facial nerve dissection"" are synonymous with ""facial nerve sparing.""
","2003" "20031201","Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the diagnoses ""myelodysplastic syndrome,"" ""myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia"" and ""myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia"" all reportable to SEER for diagnosis 2001 and later?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:""Myelodysplastic syndrome"" (NOS) is reportable to SEER--ICD-O-3 code 9989/3. ""Myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia"" is not reportable to SEER because ""thrombocytopenia"" is not reportable. ""Myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia"" is not reportable to SEER because ""anemia"" is not 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.
","2003" "20031200","Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is ""smoldering"" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, ""smoldering"" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].
According to our pathologist consultant, ""smoldering"" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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.
","2003" "20031199","CS Extension/Polyp--Colon: How is CS extension coded for tumor invasion described as ""Haggitt level 4""? See Description.","Polypectomy specimen revealed adenocarcinoma of the rectum in a tubulovillous adenoma. Per path extent of invasion was Haggitt level 4. The micro description of the tumor stated that there was malignant epithelial neoplasm in colonic mucosa.","In a 1985 Gastroenterology journal article, Haggitt described five levels of polyp invasion:
Level 0-confined to mucosa
Level 1-head
Level 2-Neck
Level 3-Stalk
Level 4-Submucosa of underlying colonic wall.
For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:
Use the best information available to code CS extension. The following conversion may be used when the only information available is the Haggitt level.
Level 0 - Extension 10
Level 1 - Extension 13
Level 2 - Extension 15
Level 3 - Extension 14
Level 4 - Extension 16
","2003" "20031198","Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description.","Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma.","If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated.","2003" "20031196","EOD-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description.","Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines.","2003" "20031195","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] when it is unknown whether or not a TRUS was done? See Description.","Patient was admitted for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. H&P states that patient had elevated PSA. PE showed benign feeling prostate. Stage is clinical T1c. There is no mention of whether or not TRUS had been done.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD extension code 15 is correct for this case example. When there is no other documentation available, the AJCC stage may be used to determine extension.","2003" "20031194","Terms of involvement--Lung: Is ""intense uptake"" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.
","We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?
Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code ""intense uptake"" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?
","Do not interpret ""intense uptake"" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as ""highly suspicious,"" ""strongly suspicious for"" malignancy, involvement, etc.","2003" "20031193","Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is a core-out of the main bronchus coded in this field? See Description.","Patient with right lung cancer was not a surgical candidate because of extent of disease. Prior to receiving radiation, patient underwent bronchoscopy, which revealed obstruction from right main bronchial tumor. Core-out of the tumor was undertaken, and a specimen was sent for path evaluation. The physician stated that this was a palliative procedure to relieve obstruction.","Do not code bronchoscopy to clear the airway as surgery of primary site. When combined with laser therapy, cryosurgery, or other tumor destruction, or when combined with excision of tumor, code as surgery of primary site.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code surgery of primary site for the case described above to 23 [Excision, NOS]. Tissue was excised and sent to pathology.
","2003" "20031192","EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description.","Examples:
1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.
2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement.
","2003" "20031191","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].
","2003" "20031189","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Would a papillary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid diagnosed approximately 2 1/2 years after a papillary carcinoma of the left lobe be coded as a second primary? See Description.","8/31/1999: papillary carcinoma, left lobe thyroid, treated with lobectomy.
1/17/2002: papillary carcinoma, right lobe, treated with lobectomy, completion thyroidectomy.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, this is a second primary. The second papillary carcinoma was more than 2 months after the first and not specified as recurrent or metastatic.
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.
","2003" "20031188","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How would this field be coded, using the revised and expanded breast code, for a lesion described as ""1.3 cm infiltrating ductal carcinoma, associated DCIS?""","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code size of primary tumor as 013. The phrasing suggests that the infiltrating ductal carcinoma measures 1.3 cm. DCIS is also present, but no size mentioned.","2003" "20031187","Histology--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology ""monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]""? See Description.
","A 14 year old with a cadaver kidney transplant in 1994 for membranous glomerulonephritis presented in 6/26/03 with a right cervical LN with biopsy showing ""lymph node involved by monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Staging was done including a bone marrow which was negative, CSF negative. The oncologist on the case reduced the immunosuppression drugs with the final outcome being no sign of the lymphoma.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code 9680/36 [Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. This post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. According to the World Health Organization, there are two types of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. ""Regular"" post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is not a neoplasm and is therefore not reportable to a cancer registry. The second type (sometimes called Hodgkin-like PTLD) is classified as a B-cell lymphoma, which means that it 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.
","2003" "20031186","Immunotherapy/Radiation Therapy: Is I-131 labeled immunoglobulin coded as immunotherapy or radiation therapy?","","Code treatment with I-131 labeled immunoglobulin as radiotherapy. The primary action is radiotherapeutic. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) uses antibodies to deliver the radiotherapy to the site of the tumor.","2003" "20031185","Primary Site: How is this field coded for a mass involving the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus? See Description.","We have an EGD report describing an ulcerated and infiltrative circumferential non-bleeding 10 cm. mass of malignant appearance found at the gastro-esophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus. The mass caused a partial obstruction. Biopsies were taken from the the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of esophagus. Pathologic diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma. Would this be coded C26.8?","Search for a statement indicating the site of origin. If the site of origin cannot be determined, and there is evidence of Barrett's esophagus, code the topography in the example above to C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus]. If there is no evidence of Barrett's esophagus, assign code C16.0 [Gastroesophageal junction]. Either C15.5 or C16.0 would be preferable to C26.8, which is very non-specific and includes GI tract, pancreas and biliary tract.","2003" "20031184","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a patient has a reduction mammoplasty (for macromastia) and within the pathology specimen there is an incidental finding of carcinoma?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code this reduction mammoplasty to 20, 21 or 30, depending on whether or not there was a nipple resection. According to our surgical consultant, a reduction mammoplasty is more like a partial mastectomy than a lumpectomy or other breast surgery.","2003" "20031182","Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description.","A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD.","Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a ""mass."" Biopsies of the ""mass"" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002.","2003" "20031181","EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: Is a ""markedly enlarged spleen"" involvement for cases of Kaposi Sarcoma?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No. Splenomegaly is not synonymous with ""extension to"" or ""involvement of"" the spleen in Kaposi's sarcoma. Look for a definite statement of Kaposi's lesion(s) involving the spleen.
","2003" "20031180","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""ductal adenocarcinoma with medullary features?""","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Medullary is a subtype of duct and ""with features of"" is a term that indicates a majority of tumor. If this is an invasive adenocarcinoma with no in situ component, code to 8510/3 [Medullary adenocarcinoma]. If only one of the components is invasive, code that component.
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.
","2003" "20031179","EOD-Extension--Stomach: How is this field coded for a stomach primary that has metastases to ""Sister Mary Joseph's Nodes?""","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For a stomach primary, code extension to 70 [Abdominal wall]. Sister Mary Joseph's nodule is a cutaneous umbilical metastasis most commonly from an intra-abdominal primary.
This rare form of cutaneous umbilical metastasis results from spread of tumor within the falciform ligament. The umbilicus is part of the abdominal wall.
","2003" "20031177","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, ""there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion""? See Description.","Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: ""Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of
43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment."" Path comment: ""There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as ""V2,"" indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion.""
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown].
","2003" "20031176","EOD-Patholgic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: How is this field coded when there is no lymph node count in the final pathology diagnosis and the gross description states ""four possible lymph nodes are dissected""? See Description.","Patient with kidney cancer underwent nephrectomy and lymph node removal. Final path diagnosis was Lymph nodes, pericaval biopsy, lymph nodes with no evidence of carcinoma. Per Gross description: Received in formalin as pericaval lymph node is 2.5 cm piece of fibrofatty tissue, from which four possible lymph nodes are dissected.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the number of regional lymph nodes examined as 04. This is as accurate as possible for this situation.","2003" "20031175","First Course Therapy: Are radio immune labeled antibodies, such as Bexxar [Tositum--I-131] coded as immunotherapy, radiotherapy, or experimental therapy?
","","Agents such as Bexxar or Zevalin are radioisotopes and coded as radiation. These agents destroy cancer cells with radiation.","2003" "20031174","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both ""recurrence"" and ""new primary""? See Description.","Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?
Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?
Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.
Be aware that a physician's use of the term ""recurrence"" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.
Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.
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.
","2003" "20031173","Hormone Therapy--Thyroid: Is pre-op hormone replacement therapy coded in this field? See Description.","Patient was admitted for thyroidectomy with a diagnosis of probable thyroid cancer. Patient's history stated that patient received work-up for hypothyroidism and was found to have thyroid nodule. FNA suggested carcinoma. Patient's medications included Cytomel and Synthroid.","Do not code hormone replacement given to treat hypothyroidism as cancer treatment. Thyroid hormone therapy is coded as treatment only for follicular and papillary thyroid carcinomas.","2003" "20031172","Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should hormonal therapy be coded as administered, when the physician states ""Tamioxifen was given as a prescription?""","","Yes, based on the prescription for Tamoxifen, code Hormone Therapy as administered.","2003" "20031171","Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.","In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?
Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.
","Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.
The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.
","2003" "20031170","Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term ""residual disease"" equivalent to ""recurrence""? See Description.","Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term ""residual"" another way of saying recurrence?
Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant, ""residual"" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.
In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather
progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.
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.
","2003" "20031169","Laterality--Head & Neck: Does the site code C098 need a laterality code? See Description.
","In the SEER EOD-88 3rd edition, page 36, site code C098 does not need laterality. In the SEER Program code manual, 3rd edition, page 93, site code C098 is listed as a site that needs a laterality code 1-9.","Topography code C098 [Overlapping lesion of tonsil] requires a laterality code of 1-9. Follow the laterality guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual.","2003" "20031167","Primary Site/Histology--CLL/SLL: How should these fields be coded when the pathological diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma is made on bone marrow biopsy only but scans show lymphadenopathy? See Description.","What histology would we give these two examples?
1. Bone marrow bx: CLL/SLL. CT chest/abdomen: Mediastinal and retroperitoneal adenopathy.
2. Bone marrow bx: CLL/SLL. CT chest/abdomen: Mediastinal and retroperitoneal adenopathy suspicious for lymphoma.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For lymphoma, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement. Involvement does not have to be proven pathologically in order to code to Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL). Code both of the examples to SLL.
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.
","2003" "20031166","EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are subpectoral nodes the same as interpectoral nodes and, therefore, regional for breast primaries?","","Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. Subpectoral is the term generally used to describe the placement of a prosthesis during reconstruction (under/behind the pectoralis major muscle). That is the same location for interpectoral, or Rotter's, nodes.","2003" "20031165","Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Colon: Are extension codes 10 [Mucosa, NOS (incl. Intramucosal, NOS)] and 11 [Lamina propria] in situ, in accordance with AJCC stage for this site?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD codes 10 and 11 are invasive. SEER, to be compatible with Summary Stage 77 and 2000, calls EOD extension codes 10 and 11 invasive because invasion of the lamina propria is invasion through the lamina propria/basement membrane and therefore invasive.
According to AJCC, the survivial rates for tumors that invade only the mucosa or lamina propria are similar to Tis tumors, so the AJCC classifies them as Tis.
","2003" "20031162","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for ""B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia"" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description.","Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification.
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.
","2003" "20031160","EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?""","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex.","2003" "20031158","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Trachea/Lung: Would synchronous lesions, of the same histology, diagnosed in the right upper lobe of the lung and trachea be a single primary when the physician feels they are two separate primaries?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to SEER rules, abstract as one primary because although these sites have separate topography codes in ICD-O-3, they were coded to the same three-digit topography code in the first edition of ICD-O (SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, page 8, Exception B). Simultaneous lesions of the same histology in trachea and lung are one primary. Code the primary site to C399 [Ill-defined sites within respiratory system].
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.
","2003" "20031156","Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Should the histology ""endometroid adenocarcinoma arising in a serous fibroadenoma"" be coded to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 9014 [Malignant serous fibroadenoma]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The best code is 8381/3 [Endometroid adenofibroma, malignant]. According to our pathologist consultant: ""Serous 'fibroadenoma' is not exactly standard terminology. I would guess the pathologist is looking at an adenofibroma with more fibro and less adeno and thus has changed the terminology around. The combination of the benign serous and malignant edometrioid is also a bit unusual. Each of the proposed codes is defendable, but I prefer endometrioid adenofibroma, 8381/3, because it puts the tumor in the adenofibroma category (less common) yet still identifies the malignant element (endometrioid), even though it does lose the serous. But anyone wanting to look at malignant adenofibromas would find the case, and we would carry it under the appropriate malignant component.""
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.
","2003" "20031155","CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description.","""Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex."" Does this mean that there is extension into the apex?","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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:
Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension.
The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion ""has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined.""
Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes].
","2003" "20031154","Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds ""what appears to be the top of a melanoma"" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds ""features consistent with lentigo maligna?""","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type.
According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.
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.
","2003" "20031153","Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description.","Example: ""Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca."" No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.
Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.
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.
","2003" "20031152","Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description.","An FNA of pancreas is stated as ""highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma."" The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis.
Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].
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.
","2003" "20031151","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a ""focus of in situ""? See Description.","For example: needle bx diagnosis is ""tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca."" The lumpectomy path states ""single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca."" Can size be coded 001?","Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection.","2003" "20031150","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should the histology ""non-invasive papillary carcinoma"" along with the comment ""solid intraductal papillary proliferation includes cytologically atypical cells with scattered mitotic figures"" be coded to 8503/2 [intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8050/2 [papillary carcinoma in situ]?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The best histology code for this breast case is 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors for Breast, Papillary carcinoma, non-invasive is a synonym for Intraductal papillary carcinoma. Further, code a more specific histologic type when found in the microscopic description, according to the SEER Program Code manual.
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.
","2003" "20031148","EOD-Systemic Symptoms at Diagnosis--Lymphoma: Would the description, ""three days of typical cold symptoms including congestion, sneezing, chills and advanced difficulty breathing and some fever"" qualify as B-Symptoms?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Use the following criteria to determine whether or not certain clinical findings qualify as ""B"" symptoms.
1. Fevers. Unexplained fever with temperature above 38 degrees C.
2. Night sweats. Drenching sweats that require change of bedclothes.
3. Weight loss. Unexplained weight loss of more than 10% of the usual body weight in the 6 months prior to diagnosis.
Pruritus alone does not qualify for B classification, nor does alcohol intolerance, fatigue, or a short, febrile illness associated with suspected infections.
The clinical description in the example above does not meet the criteria for B symptoms. Generally, the symptoms in the B category have to occur over an extended period of 7 to 30 days. In this case the fever is explained by ""typical cold symptoms"" and in addition, three days of fever is not a long enough period.
","2003" "20031147","Reason No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is this field always coded to 1 [not performed, not part of first course] for leukemias & other hematopoietic diseases?","","For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For sites where ""Surgery of the primary site"" is coded 00 or 98 (hematopoietic included), Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site should be coded as 1 [Surgery of the primary site not performed because it was not part of the planned first course of treatment]. On rare occasions, there may be surgery to the primary site for a hematopoietic disease, such as an excisional biopsy of a myeloid sarcoma. Refer to the ""Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases"" for cell-type-specific treatment information.","2003" "20031146","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description.","Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states ""largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J ""When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size.""","2003" "20031145","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description.","Site is stated to be ""left tonsil"" and was coded to site C099. ""The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue."" No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall.","2003" "20031144","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""Ductal carcinoma in situ; 6 mm focus of invasion is a pure mucinous carcinoma that appears to have arisen in the background of encysted papillary carcinoma.""","","Code to mucinous (8480) since that is the only clearly invasive component of this diagnosis.
According to our pathologist consultant, ""Encysted papillary carcinoma is the same thing as intracystic papillry carcinoma, which I think of as an intraductal papillary carcinoma which has greatly expanded the duct to form a cyst-like structure. It generally behaves in an in-situ rather than an invasive fashion. The only clearly invasive component is the mucinous carcinoma, which is what I would code.""
","2003" "20031143","Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term ""within"" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.
","For example: a kidney tumor is described as ""completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat."" Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term ""within"" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which ""within"" appears.
In the example, ""Encased"" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].
","2003" "20031142","Other Therapy/Immunotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should erythropoietin be coded for leukemia or other hematopoietic diseases?","","Do not code Erythropoietin as treatment, it is used as an ancillary drug for leukemias or other hematopoietic diseases. Record information about erythropoietin in the text field.","2003" "20031141","Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description.","For example, breast primary: Final path states ""14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states ""18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted."" CAP Micro Summary lists ""20/16 nodes examined/positive."" What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries.","2003" "20031140","Primary site--Unknown & ill-defined site/Kidney: How should this field be coded when humeral metastases are compatible with renal cell carcinoma pathologically, no kidney lesion is found clinically and the physician's signout diagnosis is ""no primary found, as of now unknown""? See Description.","Path states ""biopsy of humerus, mets sarcomatoid carcinoma consistent with renal cell carcinoma."" Material was sent to Mayo Clinic for consult & they state ""with focus of clear cells, agree that a likely primary is renal cell carcinoma."" Abdominal CT showed no abnormality in kidneys. When the registrar abstracted the case she spoke to the managing physician who told her that ""no specific site was found and it was, as of now, unknown."" This was stated about three months after dx. Can we code as a renal primary based on pathologic information or should we code unknown based on CT and physician's statement?","Code this case to C64.9 [Kidney, NOS].
ICD-O-3 rule H states that the topography code attached to a morphology term may be used when the topographic site is not given in the diagnosis. Topography code C64.9 is attached to morphology code 8312/3 [Renal cell carcinoma] in ICD-O-3.
","2003" "20031138","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states ""tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion""? See Description.","Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states ""several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, ""tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.","2003" "20031137","Primary Site--Pancreas: Should tumors with the histology ""islet cell carcinoma"" be coded C25.4 [Islet of Langerhans] even though the tumor location is stated to be in head of pancreas?","","Assign code C25.4 [Islets of Langerhans...Endocrine pancreas]. Islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas is a tumor of the endocrine pancreas. Although Islet cells are present throughout the pancreas, the best code is C25.4 to distinguish endocrine from exocrine cancers.","2003" "20031134","Surgery of Primary Site/Immunotherapy--Bladder: Is administration of BCG coded as both surgery and immunotherapy?","","Yes, code as both surgery and immunotherapy. The CoC included immunotherapy/BCG under surgery and also under immunotherapy by request of the clinical advisor for bladder, reflecting the mixed-modality nature of the treatments. [Answer from CoC I & R]","2003" "20031133","First Course Treatment--Thyroid: Is hormone replacement following total thyroidectomy coded as first course treatment for all thyroid cases?","","Code Hormone therapy as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] when thyroid replacement therapy is part of the first course of treatment for follicular or papillary thyroid cancer following thyroidectomy.
Thyroid hormone replacement therapy has a treatment effect on differentiated (follicular and papillary) carcinomas of the thyroid. This treatment effect is not seen for most medullary and undifferentiated thyroid cancers.
","2003" "20031132","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are micrometastases in the lymph nodes, found only on immunohistochemical staining, coded as positive lymph nodes?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code as positive lymph nodes that have micrometastases diagnosed ONLY on immunohistochemistry. By traditional diagnostic methods, these are still negative lymph nodes.
Summary Stage and EOD ignore the IHC positive micrometastases for cases diagnosed through 2003. The collaborative staging system that begins with 2004 cases and is based on the sixth edition of TNM addresses this issue.
","2003" "20031131","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, ""the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?""
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, these are separate primaries.
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.
","2003" "20031130","Primary site--Melanoma: Should melanoma of the nipple be coded to C50.0 [Nipple] or C44.5 [Skin of the trunk]?","","Code to C44.5 [skin of trunk]. External melanoma is an epidermal malignancy, beginning in melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. C50.0 excludes skin of breast.","2003" "20031129","Primary Site: How is this field coded for cholangiocarcinoma involving the intrapancreatic bile duct?","","Code the primary site as C24.0 [Extrahepatic bile duct, includes Common bile duct] for a cholagiocarcinoma originating in the common bile duct. A portion of the common bile duct is within the head of the pancreas: The intrapancreatic segment of the common bile duct.","2003" "20031128","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""PD infiltrating duct ca with focal sarcomatoid pleomorphic features?""","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8500/33 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. ""Features"" is a term from the list indicating a majority of the tumor, however; in this case ""features"" is modified by ""focal"" which does not indicate a majority of the tumor.
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.
","2003" "20031127","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Would the simultaneously occurring histologies of ""high grade ductal carcinoma in situ with micro invasion"" and ""keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma"" be coded as two primaries or as a single primary when the pathologist is not clear whether two separate tumor masses exist?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries, assuming the tumors are separate and the margins are clear/negative. Code 8071/3 [Invasive squamous cell ca, keratinizing] and 8500/3 [Ductal carcinoma, ""microinvasive""].
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.
","2003" "20031125","Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.
","Pathology report states, ""Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes."" The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?
","Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.
This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].
","2003" "20031124","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Synchronous invasive right breast tumors. Ductal carcinoma, NOS in UIQ and Ductal carcinoma, tubular type in LOQ. Are these two primaries or a single primary coded to 8523/3?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries, one 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma] and one 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma].
Apply the multiple primary rules first. These are synchronous right breast tumors with different histologies. Therefore, they are separate primaries according to rule 5.a on page 12 of the SEER Program Code Manual. ICD-O-3 histology code 8523/3 is NOT to be used to combine histologies from separate primaries; it is used for mixed histologies in a single primary.
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.
","2003" "20031123","Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated] for cases diagnosed in 2003 or later?","","For prostate cases diagnosed in 2003 and forward: convert Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated].","2003" "20031120","Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignant spindle cell neoplasm in a subcutaneous mass of the right knee? See Description.
","The pathology report says: Right knee tumor:
A. discrete subcutaneous mass 3.5x5.2x1.4 cm malignant spindle cell neoplasm (see Comment)
B. A focus of subcutaneous malignant neoplasm is identified in the superior resection margin.
C.All other margins are clear.
The comment mentions that the specimen has been sent to Mayo Clinic and the Mayo clinic consult says, ""we still believe that the diagnosis of spindle cell carcinoma is correct. Obviously the differential diagnosis involves melanoma and sarcoma also. The results of the immunoperoxidase stains strongly support the prior diagnosis of a carcinoma.""
","Code the site to C49.2 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of lower limb and hip]. The site is a subcutaneous mass. C49 with 8032/3 will not be impossible following the next updates to the SEER edits.
","2003" "20031119","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description.","Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.
Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology).
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node.","2003" "20031118","Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: How are these fields coded for localized disease described as ""Nodal Kaposi Sarcoma"" found on inguinal node biopsy only?","","Code the site of involvement as the primary site when no other involvement is documented. For the case above, code C774 [inguinal lymph node] as primary site.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 13 [Visceral].
","2003" "20031117","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description.
","On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site.
Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM.
The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate primaries.
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.
","2003" "20031116","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term ""filling defect"" be used to code tumor size? See Description.
","Site: Bladder
CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.
Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.
OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior
Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.
","For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.
The term ""filling defect"" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.
","2003" "20031115","EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Extension: Does extracapsular lymph node extension into adjacent tissue or organs affect EOD coding? See Description.","For a lung primary a PET scan showed marked uptake in the right hilum consistent with metastatic disease. A radical pneumonectomy was performed and the operative findings showed that the pulmonary artery was involved with a mass.
Pathology: Small cell carcinoma in the lung parenchyma. The distal bronchi showed obstructive pneumonitis. There were mets found on 02/05 on the hilar lymph nodes and 00/02 peribronchial nodes. The mets in the hilar nodes extended beyond the lymph node capsule into the pulmonary artery.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Extracapsular lymph node extension does not affect the extent of disease. Code the extent of regional lymph node involvement in EOD lymph nodes.","2003" "20031114","EOD-Extension--Colon: How is this field coded for an appendical primary when the appendix has ruptured and intrapentoneal fluid is positive?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD extension as 85 [Metastasis]. Positive intraperitoneal fluid is equivalent to distant metastasis (implantation) for colon, including appendix, primaries.","2003" "20031113","Primary site/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for this type of primary site when a tumor excision and lymph node dissection is performed? See Description.","Patient had a left parotidectomy w/ neck dissection in 02/2003. Findings showed a 10x5cm neck mass over the angle of the mandible as well as a 1.5 cm level 4 mass. Path showed invasive mod diff squamous cell ca. with posterior soft tissue margin positive for tumor; small portion of salivary gland had no tumor. Metastatic SCCa in 5 of 34 lymph nodes of neck dissection; no tumor in parotid lymph nodes. Pathology report says this could be a parotid carcinoma because the bulk of the disease is in the parotid, but it could also be metastatic...correlate with clinical findings. Doctor calls this unknown primary of the head and neck. Is this C80.9 or C76.0?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The data item ""Surgery of Primary Site"" is intended to record only surgeries of the primary site. If the primary site is unknown or ill-defined, it is impossible to determine whether or not a particular surgery was performed on the primary site. ""Surgical Procedure of Other Site"" collects much less specific information; however, this is the correct data item to record surgery performed when the primary site is unknown or ill-defined.
For the case example, code the primary site as C76.0 [Head, face or neck, NOS]. Code Surgery of Primary Site as 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, with or without surgical treatment]. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site as 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed].
","2003" "20031112","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for a markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm diagnosed by a fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area? See Description.
","The diagnosis was made in Oct. 2002 by a CT guided fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area. The cytology report says:
a. positive for malignant cells, markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm.
b. It is impossible to tell from this aspiration biopsy whether or not this represents a high grade sarcoma or a high grade carcinoma, but our consensus opinion is that this lesion is a high grade carcinoma.
The combination of soft tissue topography and carcinoma morphology is Impossible by SEER edits. How should we code this?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the site to C76.3 [Pelvis, NOS]. Code the histology to 8010/34 [Carcinoma, NOS, high grade].
Unless there is better information available regarding the site, assign C76.3. The information provided above does not indicate the exact site of the mass.
Code the histology based on the consensus opinion stated above.
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.
","2003" "20031111","EOD-Extension--Lung: For a left upper lobe lung tumor that extends across the fissure into the left lower lobe, should this field be coded to 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] or 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign EOD extension code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung]. EOD extension code 10 applies to a single tumor within one lung, even one that crosses over a fissure into another lobe. EOD extension code 10 is not correct if the tumor extends to the pleura, or if there is atelectasis, obstructive pneumonitis or malignant pleural effusion. Code 77 is incorrect because that is a separate tumor nodule in a different lobe.","2003" "20031110","Primary Site/Reportability--Head & Neck (Lip): Should basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas of ""lip, NOS"" be coded as reportable to C00_ [Lip] or to C440 [Skin of Lip, NOS], and therefore be non-reportable to SEER?
","","Basal cell carcinoma of lip, NOS is coded to C440 [skin of lip] because basal cell starts on skin cells, not mucous membrane. Basal cell carcinoma of the skin (except for genital sites) is not reportable to SEER.
Squamous cell can be either skin or vermillion of lip. Read the pathology report. If the squamous cell lesion is overlapping skin and vermillion, go with the area of greatest involvement. If more than 50% of the lesion is on the vermillion, code to the vermillion [C00__] and it is reportable to SEER.
","2003" "20031106","Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion.
","The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor.
","Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3.
","2003" "20031105","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: How should this field be coded for a re-excision or wide excision of a skin primary when the margins are NOS?","","For cases diagnosed 2003 and later:
Assign surgery codes 45, 46 and 47 only when the margins are documented to be more than 1cm. Use the most appropriate code from 30-36 if re-excision or wide excision followed a biopsy. Use a code from the 20's series if the procedure is called a ""biopsy.""
","2003" "20031103","Reportability--Ovary: Is a Stage IIIC serous borderline tumor (micropapillary type) of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 reportable?
","","Serous borderline tumor of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 is not reportable to SEER. The behavior code is /1 in ICD-O-3. The high stage does not make this borderline tumor reportable.","2003" "20031102","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology ""Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma"" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, ""Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation.""
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.
","2003" "20031101","Primary Site/Behavior Code/EOD-Extension: How would these fields be coded for ""squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving papilloma -- locally aggressive but not technically invasive"" found in the sphenoid sinus, soft tissue of the skull base and brain? See Description.","The managing physician has staged this pathologically as T4 N0 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinuses. The final pathology report says "" Sinus, sphenoid, resection: papillary neoplasm most consistent with inverted papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 7 cm in greatest extent, focus of probable superficial invasion (see comment).
Soft tissue, skull base, excision: involved by papillary neoplasm with squamous cell carcinoma in situ (see comment). Brain, extradural, intercranial biopsy: involved by papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ. COMMENT:
This is a predominantly exophytic neoplasm with infolding of the tumor epithelium and in situ extension into submucosal glands. There are only focal areas suspicious for invasive squamous cell carcinoma, with probable invasion (<2mm) in one section....The histologic features are most consistent with an inverted papilloma with carcinoma in situ."" When asked to comfirm if the diagnosis were in situ or superficially invasive, the pathologist responded ""Squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving a papilloma. Locally aggressive but not technically invasive.""
","Code site to C31.3 [sphenoid sinus]. Code the site based on the final pathology report diagnosis. In the case example, the site attributed to the managing physician appears to be an error.
Code behavior to 3 [malignant, primary site]. The SEER list of terms meaning involvement may be used to help determine behavior. The terms used by the pathologist are ""probable"" superficial invasion and ""suspicious"" for invasive squamous cell carcinoma with ""probable"" invasion. Interpret as invasive.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension to 70 [Brain] because this tumor involves the brain.
","2003" "20031100","Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.","Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.","No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). This test is more prognostic than diagnostic. Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.","2003" "20031098","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Date of diagnosis--Cervix: How is this field coded when initially carcinoma in situ is diagnosed by biopsy and at a later date invasive tumor is found pathologically?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Since carcinoma in situ of the cervix is not reportable to SEER (as of 1/1/1996), the diagnosis date is the date of the invasive diagnosis.
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.
","2003" "20031096","Radiation: How would this field be coded for treatment with quadramet [radioactive samarium]? See Description.","Paitent is receiving quadramet for treatment of lung metastases.","Code Quadramet in the RX Summ-Radiation field as 3 [Radioisotopes]. Quadramet is a radioisotope used to palliate bone pain. The instructions in the SEER manual state: ""Record all radiation that is given, even if it is palliative.""","2003" "20031095","Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of ""pericolonic fat, NOS"" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description.
","In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.
","Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only].
In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension.
","2003" "20031094","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are coded and what code(s) is/are used to represent the histology ""invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive spindle metaplastic change [metaplastic carcinoma] with a second, separate, tumor ""invasive ductal carcinoma, moderately differentiated with extensive associated DCIS""? See Description.","The comment on the pathology report states, ""due to the associated DCIS this smaller lesion is felt to most likely represent a synchronous second primary."" Is this two primaries, one coded 8575/33 and the other coded 8500/32 or is this a single primary with a combination code -- 8523/33?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract as two breast primaries. Code to 8575/33 (metaplastic carcinoma) and 8500/32 (infiltrating duct carcinoma). There are two lesions with different histologic types.
Do not use code 8523 to combine separate tumors with different histologies.
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.
","2003" "20031093","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is a small bowel carcinoid diagnosed 10 years after the diagnosis of metastatic carcinoid of unknown primary site a new primary or a new recurrence? See Description.
","A patient was diagnosed in 1991 with metastatic carcinoid to liver-no primary found. In 2001, the patient is diagnosed with small bowel carcinoid at another hospital. Hospital 2 has no other information.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries unless there is a physician's statement that the liver lesion is metastatic from the later small bowel carcinoid. Without such a statement regarding lesions 10 years apart, do not make an assumption that one is metastatic from the other.
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.
","2003" "20031092","Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is the histology of invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis coded?
Could high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type be a recurrence of ductal carcinoma diagnosed 18 years earlier?
Is ""invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type"" one or two primaries? See Description.
","A patient was diagnosed in 1984 with 1st breast primary, histology was ductal carcinoma, T1N0, LIQ left breast. In 2002 a mass was found on mammogram, MRM with axillary sampling performed. Histology was invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type, nuclear grade 3/3, T2N1, UOQ left breast. Is the ductal carcinoma in situ recurrent disease from the 1st primary? Does it go with the lobular histogenesis, i.e., lobular carcinoma and DCIS histology code 8522/3 or is the ductal in situ a 3rd primary?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant:
Invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis appears to be an unusual histology for a breast primary. Code it as such 8041 [Small cell carcinoma, NOS].
The 2002 lesion is most likely a new primary since the previous lesion was 18 years ago, in a different quadrant, and invasive. A comedo DCIS would probably not be asymtomatic for 18 years; an unlikely ""recurrence"" of an earlier ducal carcinoma.
Code ""invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type"" as two primaries. Code the small cell as a separate primary (8041/3), and the DCIS separately (8501/2).
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.
","2003" "20031091","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma.","2003" "20031090","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/First Course Treatment--Breast: How is tumor size coded when preventative tamoxifen treatment precedes breast cancer diagnosis? Can we code the tumor size from the surgical specimen? Is tamoxifen treatment here? See Description.
","What is the tumor size in this situation? Patient is on the STAR trial (preventative tamoxifen for women with high risk for breast cancer). Patient develops breast cancer and has surgery.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the surgical pathology report.
Do not code this preventative tamoxifen as first course cancer-directed treatment. This tamoxifen was part of a clinical trial intending to delay or prevent beast cancer from developing.
","2003" "20031089","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bone: How are these fields coded for a squamous cell carcinoma in bone? See Description.","The consult path report says ""I believe that there is definitely high grade malignant tumor in this amputation specimen, and that this tumor represents an invasive squamous cell carcinoma, which is extending into the bone and permeating in between the bone trabeculae. ... The fact that squamous cell carcinoma can arise from the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis is well recognized.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based on the information provided, code the primary site as C40._ or C41._ [bone] because the tumor originated in the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis. Code to the site in which the tumor arises. Override the SEER site/histology edits to allow this rare combination of bone and squamous cell carcinoma.
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.
","2003" "20031088","First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Hematopoietic, NOS: How do you code treatment for a myelodysplastic syndrome when a patient is admitted to receive a ""second transfusion 7 months after diagnosis""?
","","The first course of treatment for these hematopoietic primaries lasts until there is a treatment change. For the case you cite the second transfusion (7 months after diagnosis) would be first course treatment. Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field to 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].
","2003" "20031087","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma/Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a primary brain lymphoma that is described as multi-focal?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since brain is the only site involved in this example, assign code 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site].","2003" "20031086","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Must all three criteria be met (an elevated PSA; documentation that the physical exam was negative; and, if a TRUS was done, there is documentation that the findings were negative) in order to code this field to 15 [Tumor identified by needle by elevated PSA]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines, Final version distributed to SEER Registries 6/20/2001.
Prostate clinical EOD extension code 15 is used when all three criteria are met as listed on page 3 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. Meeting 1 or 2 of the 3 criteria is not sufficient for code 15. PE must be done and documented as negative. TRUS may or may not be done, but if done, must be documented as negative. PSA must either be elevated or there is no documentation about the PSA.
Codes 20 and 23-24 would be used with positive physical exam or positive TRUS.
Use codes 30-34 when there is no documentation that the physical exam was negative, or no documentation that the TRUS was negative, or when the prostatic apex is involved.
","2003" "20031085","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What are the correct site and histology codes for ""tubal serous adenocarcinoma"" identified in a fallopian tube? See Description.","The pathology report of a laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy states: 1.5 cm intraluminal mass left fallopian tube: micro: tubal serous adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, infiltrates the muscular wall of the fallopian tube; serosa does not appear to be penetrated. The left ovary is negative for malignancy.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma].
The primary site for this case is fallopian tube, not the suggested site code of ovary.
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.
","2003" "20031084","Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology ""Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type?"" See Description.","The code 8144/3 is not valid for colon primaries. Should we code these as 8140/3 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] or over-ride the error message?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code adenocarcinoma, intestinal type of the colon 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Do not use code 8144 for intestinal type adenocarcinoma in the colon.
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.
","2003" "20031083","Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when the only description in the pathology report is ""non-high grade?""","","Code ""non-high grade"" as 9 [unknown].","2003" "20031082","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.
","2003" "20031081","Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a ""hilar mass,"" is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field?","","Because the only description available is ""hilar mass,"" code primary site as C34.0.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.
","2003" "20031080","Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, ""there is no definite invasion identified"" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description.","Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as ""each measuring close to 2 cm."" A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection.
Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read...""it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation."" Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.
A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly.
","2003" "20031079","Primary Site: Should we code C80.9 [unknown primary] or code C34.9 [Lung] according to the terminology, ""most likely site of origin is lung""? See Description.","We have a case of metastatic keratinizing squamous cell ca. The work-up shows small densities in the lung that may represent inflammatory or chronic changes. No other imaging that shows origin. Physical exam states 2 months of left axillary mass. H/O SCCA of the skin involving chest wall.
Path reads: Metastatic w/d keratinizing SCCA. This lesion almost undoubtedly represents mets. The most likely site of origin is lung followed by esophageal primary or head & neck. The final discharge states, ""Metastatic SCCA to Left Axilla"".
","Code the primary site according to the physicians' opinion, especially the treatment decision. If the physician treats the patient for a lung primary, code primary site as lung. If the primary site cannot be determined, code C80.9.
According to the pathologist, the most likely primary site for the example above is lung. The final discharge diagnosis does not reflect the pathologist's opinion, and does not contradict it either. If there is no conflicting medical opinion, code primary site to C34.9 [lung].
","2003" "20031078","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are ""multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor"" or ""lymphoid areas"" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description.","For an adenocarcinoma in the colon, under the ""lymph node"" section of the final path diagnosis it states ""multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor"" in addition to ""one of two involved lymph nodes."" The micro description states ""There are multiple small lymphoid areas with tumor. A definite node excised from the mesentery shows...replacement of stroma and an additional very small node shows no tumor.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No, do not code tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas as lymph node involvement.
However, code lymph node involvement for this case as 3 [mesenteric, NOS] because a mesenteric node is involved.
Regarding tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas from our pathologist consultant: Unless the anatomy of lymph node is evident (sinuses, trabeculae, primary and secondary follicles) these aren't lymph nodes and should not be coded as such. Unless there is evidence to the contrary in the path report, I would suggest that this be considered intramural spread, not lymph node spread.
","2003" "20031077","Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology ""mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma?"" Is mucin-producing synonymous with mucinous?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8253 [Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous]. Mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma is best classified in ICD-O-3 as Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous.
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.
","2003" "20031076","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Is this field coded to the size of a hypoechoic mass identified on a TRUS when there is no tumor size from the prostatectomy specimen?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ultrasound measurement of a malignancy can be used to code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. Information on tumor size taken from imaging/radiographic techniques has low priority, just above physical examination.","2003" "20031075","EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for ""adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS].","2003" "20031073","EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, ""involvement of periurethral or urethral margins""? See Description.","The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions ""extraprostatic urethra"" involvement.","2003" "20031072","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase ""tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule""? See Description.
","The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: ""Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin."" Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?
","Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.
For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.
","2003" "20031071","EOD-Extension--Brain and CNS: How does one code this field for a brain primary with drop metastases and/or seeding? See Description.","In the past SEER has advised coding these cases to extension 60. However, SS2000 states to code these cases to distant.
1. Primary in the cerebrum, hypothalamic region, with drop mets to spinal cord.
2. Primary in the cerebellum with spinal cord drop mets.
3. Primary in the fourth ventricle, with drop mets along the spinal cord.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign extension code 85 [Metastasis] for drop metastases and/or seeding of the spinal cord from a brain primary.
Assign code 85 to each of the three cases above.
","2003" "20031069","Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures--Brain and CNS: Is stem cell transplant coded as treatment for medulloblastoma? See Description.","The PDQ lists high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow rescue as treatment for children under three. A case of medulloblastoma that was treated with gross total resection of the tumor, followed by chemotherapy and autologous PBSC (peripheral blood stem cell) transplant.","A stem cell transplant does not fit the definition of ""treatment"" because it does not affect, control, change, remove or destroy proliferating cancer tissue. However, there is a place to code this procedure. Code stem cell transplant under Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures. Assign code 20 [Stem cell harvest].","2003" "20031068","EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of ""superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp"" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.
","Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, ""upper stalk"" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.
","2003" "20031067","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as ""extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?"" See Description.","A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as ""extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET."" Neither are compatible with site.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva).
Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.
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.
","2003" "20031066","Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of ""infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?""","","For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: ""Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else.""
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.
","2003" "20031063","Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: ""early in year,"" ""late in year,"" ""2-3 months ago,"" ""7 months ago,"" ""new diagnosis."" See Description.","Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term ""late"" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term ""early"" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of ""new"" to be equivalent to ""recent"" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001.
","SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as ""99."" Avoid coding ""unknown"" for the year of diagnosis.
","2003" "20031062","Primary Site--Melanoma: How would this field be coded for a pleural effusion consistent with metastatic melanoma and ""no skin lesions?""","","Code primary site as C44.9 [Skin, NOS]. ICD-O-3 does not list a suggested site code for 8720/3 because melanoma can arise in other parts of the body. However, C44.9 [Skin, NOS] is the default when the primary cannot be found.","2003" "20031060","Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Because histology 9895/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia] was recognized as a distinct entity by WHO with too few cases of the subtypes [with or without prior MDS] to warrant separate histology codes for each, should the wording for the non-bold definitions in ICD-O-3 be changed to the following in both the alpha and numeric sections? See Description.
AML with multilineage dysplasia and prior MDS
AML with multilineage dysplasia and without prior MDS
","How do we code histology for the following case of AML?
Patient was admitted for profound anemia and thrombocytopenia with
no immediate explanation. Path final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy: acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Per micro description: findings are
characteristic of AML that appears to be arising within the context of a myelodysplastic syndrome. The discharge diagnosis (2 days after bone marrow biopsy) read: myelodysplastic syndrome with profound anemia and
thrombocytopenia.
Do we code the histology per the final path diagnosis (code 9861/3)?
Using the current version of ICD-O-3, we could arrive at a histology code of 9895/3 based on the micro findings of AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome. However, per the above-mentioned SEER e-mail, we would not because there was no mention of multilineage dysplasia.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:To assign code 9895, it is important that the diagnosis includes ""multilineage dysplasia."" Use code 9895 when the diagnosis is with or without prior (not concurrent) myelodysplastic syndrome AND multilineage dysplasia. Acute myeloid leukemia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome and without multilineage dysplasia is coded 9861 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS].
Although the wording of 9895 cannot be changed, coders can make a note that the synonyms are intended to include:
-Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia with prior myelodysplastic syndrome
and
-Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome.
The histology code for the case example is 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS].
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.
","2003" "20031059","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Description.","A breast cancer patient had a FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection.
Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, the number of Regional Nodes Positive and Examined include all nodes examined by the pathologist, unless there is disease progression. In other words, these fields are cumulative. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 97 for number positive and 95 for number examined. 1 & 2. Assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Case example: Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07.","2003" "20031057","Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: How is this field coded for a five grade system? See Description.","Example: Invasive, high grade transitional cell carcinoma (Grade 4-5/5)","For this example, code grade as 4 based on the term ""High grade."" If ""high grade"" was not stated, the grade would be coded as 9, not determined. There is no SEER translation between the ICD-O grades and a five grade system for bladder. None of the pathololgist experts we querried knew of a five grade system for bladder.","2003" "20031056","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description.
","A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with ""recurrent right breast ca"" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS.
Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002.
The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as ""recurrent"" 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.
","2003" "20031055","Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.
","We have a case of reported ""cholangiocarcinoma"" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....
Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.
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.
","2003" "20031054","Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?","","Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.
In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.
","2003" "20031053","Reportability/History (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code--Ovary: Should the matrix principal in Rule F be applied to code a 2002 right ovary case to 8462/3 [Papillary serous borderline ovarian tumor] when peritoneal washings reveal the same histology?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Do not apply the matrix principle in this case. This ovarian tumor is not reportable (behavior /1 per ICD-O-3). The peritoneal washings reveal the same histology (/1), rather than malignant cells. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence to support changing the behavior code.
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.
","2003" "20031052","Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description.
","Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)?
","Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias.
","2003" "20031051","Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: What code is used to represent the histology ""Ewing's Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET)""? See Description.","A comment on one path report states ""some authors consider both Ewing's & PNET to be the same biologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 & 22."" The pathologists at our children's hospital agree with this statement and contend that the two should have the same histologic code.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
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.
","2003" "20031050","Radiation Sequence with Surgery: How is this field coded when radiation was recommended but it is unknown whether radiation was ever given?","","Assign code 0 [No radiation and/or cancer-directed surgery]. Code Radiation Sequence with Surgery as 0 when radiation is coded 8.","2003" "20031049","Histology (Pre-2007)--Stomach: What code is used to represent the histology of ""mucin-secreting adenocarcinoma, intestinal type ""for a stomach primary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For this specific example, code histology to 8481 [Mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] as it is a more specific cell type with inherent prognostic information.
Code 8255/3 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] is not appropriate for this case because ""intestinal type"" is a more specific description of this cancer and not another type of cancer. There are two broad categories of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: Intestinal and Diffuse.
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.
","2003" "20031048","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported.","2003" "20031045","Other Therapy: How do we classify ""thalidomide"" when it is given as cancer directed therapy?","","Code to the appropriate code (1, 2 or 3) under Other Therapy, depending on whether the drug was given as part of a clinical trial. If not part of a clinical trial, assign code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].
Thalidomide is not FDA approved for treating cancer. It is under investigation for anti-angiogenesis effects in different cancers.
","2003" "20031043","EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How is this field coded for a stage III A endometrial primary with positive pelvic washings, involvement of the omental serosa, and negative lymph nodes?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 85 [Metastasis]. According to our TNM consultant, Omental metastasis is M1, Stage IVB [EOD 85].","2003" "20031042","Histology (Pre-2007): How are the following four histologies coded: 1) Adenocarcinoma with focal mucinous adenocarcinoma; 2) Adenocarcinoma with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma, 3) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma, and 4) Mixed infiltrating duct and focal medullary carcinoma? See Description.","1. How do we code colon: Adenocarcinoma with focal Mucinous adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?
2. A lung lesion with predominant adenoca with focal areas of bronchioalveolar adenoca? 8140/3 or 8255/3?
3. Mixed infiltrating duct carcinoma and medullary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?
4. Mixed infil duct ca and focal medulary ca? 8510/3 or 8255/3?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
1. 8140/3, Adenocarcinoma. Mucinous has a specific rule (see sinq 20010075): Include the mucinous component only if it is 50% or more of the tumor. ""Focal"" is not a majority term.
2. 8250/3, Bronchiolo-alveolar adenoca. Code the more specific histology.
3. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.
4. 8523/3, Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma. Combination of infiltrating duct and another type of carcinoma.
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.
","2003" "20031040","First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy/Immunotherapy--Thyroid: For this primary, do we code I-131 as a Radio-isotope as well as a Biological Response Modifier? See Description.","(SEER Book 8 lists I-131 as a Biological Response Modifier.) Immunoglobulin is listed as immunotherapy agent in the CCR manual also coded as immunotherapy. Are there two different types of I-131, immunoglobulin and sodium iodide?","Code Radioactive Iodine, Sodium Iodide 131-I, as radiation (code 3, Radioisotopes).
Sodium Iodide is listed as an ancillary drug in SEER Book 8, page 45. The listing on page 63 refers to Antiferritin antibody, or AntiCEA. Both of these were under clinical investigation when Book 8 was written. They are no longer active and this change will be made when Book 8 is revised.
","2003" "20031039","EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description.
","CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?
","Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor.
Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging.
","2003" "20031037","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 2003+/Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined--Hematopoietic/Brain/Lymph Nodes/Ill-defined/Unknown: Are codes 9 [Unknown; not stated] and 99 [Unknown; not stated] used respectively for these data items for the mentioned primary sites?","","For cases diagnosed Jan 2003 and later:
The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field is blank for 2003+ cases.
Scope of reg lymph node surgery
Brain, Central nervous system - 9
Hematopoietic, reticuloendothelial, immunoproliferative & myeloproliferative disease - 9
Unknown & ill-defined primary - 9
Lymphomas - 9
","2003" "20031036","Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When both the path and clinical diagnoses simultaneously reflect reportable diagnoses but one is a worse form of the same disease process, which diagnosis do we code? See Description.","Would this case be coded to RAEB or AML? Bone marrow diagnosis: Hypercellular marrow with profound trilinieage dyspoietic changes. Comment: the features are consistent with RAEB. Clinical diagnosis five days later states: Myelodysplastic syndrome, early acute myelocytic leukemia (likely AML).","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:When several diagnoses are made as part of the diagnostic process within two months, code the one with the worst prognosis.
Code the case example as acute myelocytic leukemia.
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.
","2003" "20031035","Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts?","Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:
I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia.
II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.
Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.
In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of ""decreased sideroblasts"" along with the path comment of ""refractory anemia"" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as ""Refractory anemia"" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as ""sideroblasts"" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.
Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.
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.
","2003" "20031034","Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) ""renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma"" and 2) ""chromophil renal cell carcinoma?""
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code ""chromophil"" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. ""More or less"" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.
1) The diagnosis ""renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma"" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.
2) Code ""chromophil renal cell carcinoma"" to 8260.
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.
","2003" "20031033","Grade, Differentiation--Hematopoietic: Is this field coded to 6 [B-cell] from a flow cytometry that specifies the percentage of B-cells that exist within the percentage of lymphoid cells in the bone marrow biopsy? See Description.","Bone marrow biopsy, Final path diagnosis: consistent with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Comment: flow cytometry analysis was performed on bone marrow aspirate. The gated population of lymphoid cells comprises approximately 19% of total nucleated cells. Of these, 53% are B-cells which express CD19, CD22. These findings are consistent with the above diagnosis.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, assign code 6, B-cell. The flow cytometry analysis confirms B-cell.
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.
","2003" "20031032","Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description.","Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia.
Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment.
","Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis.
When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case.
Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia.
Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
","2003" "20031031","Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with ""myelodysplasia"" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is ""myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?""
","Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia.
Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term ""myelodysplasia"" is non-specific?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary.
Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not 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.
","2003" "20031030","Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the ""gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19?","","Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum.
According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower.
","2003" "20031029","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description.","Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.
Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. ""Keratinized epithelium"" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of ""areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium"" refers to ""normal"" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.
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.
","2003" "20031028","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.
","(Primary site = larynx)
9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.
The term ""lymphadenopathy"" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.
Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.
Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.
","2003" "20031026","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a ""localized, NOS?"" See discussion.","How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS].","2003" "20031025","Histology (Pre-2007): Is a small cell undifferentiated carcinoma coded to 8041/34 [small cell carcinoma undifferentiated] or to 8045/34 [combination small cell AND undifferentiated carcinoma] using terms from the 2 columns in Appendix 1 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses? See discussion.","Per pathology report, diagnosis is small cell undifferentiated carcinoma in biopsies taken from the laryngeal surface of the epiglottis and left false vocal cord.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8041/34 [small cell carcinoma, undifferentiated]. The diagnosis indicates that this is an undifferentiated small cell carcinoma, rather than a mixture of small cell carcinoma with undifferentiated carcinoma.
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.
","2003" "20031024","Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion.","Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved?","Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under ""Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery.""
It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved.
","2003" "20031023","Grade, Differentiation: Can differentiation be coded from the pathology report for a biopsy from tissue involved by local recurrence?","","Code grade from original primary site. Do not code grade from a local recurrence.","2003" "20031022","Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is a composite resection performed for an oral cavity primary coded to 40 [Radical excision of tumor, NOS], 41 [Radical excision of tumor only], 42 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with mandibles (marginal, segmental, hemi-, or total resection], 43 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with maxilla (partial, subtotal, or total resection)]? See discussion.
","Example:
Patient underwent composite resection of left soft palate, tonsillar fossa, medial pterygoid and lateral tongue for a primary of the retromolar trigone. There was no mention of an excision of the mandible; however, the procedure included the application of a mandibular reconstruction plate.
","Use surgery codes 40-43 for composite resection of an oral cavity primary. In the case example, code Site-Specific surgery as 42 [Combination of 41 WITH resection in continuity with mandible]. Even though excision of mandible was not mentioned, there was mention of a mandibular reconstruction plate. Since the retromolar trigone is ON the mandible, resection of the mandible is likely.","2003" "20031021","Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the anatomical distinction among tonsillar fossa, tonsillar pillar, and tonsil NOS?","Operative findings describe a right tonsil three times the size of the left tonsil. Tonsil is dissected from the tonsillar fossa. There appeared to be no involvement of tumor below the tonsillar capsule.","The tonsil lies in an indentation called the tonsillar fossa. The tonsillar fossa is bordered on either side by the tonsillar pillars. The tonsillar pillars are part of the supporting structure of the throat opening.
Code C09.9 [Tonsil NOS] as the primary site for the case above.
","2003" "20031020","Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is the removal of the left tonsil during a bilateral tonsillectomy for a right tonsil primary coded in the surgery of the primary site field to 27 [Excisional bx], 30 [Pharyngectomy, NOS], 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy; bilateral tonsillectomy], or to code 2 under the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field? See discussion.
","Our notes document a 1/99 SEER e-mail stating that tonsillectomy/tonsillectomy with wide excision would be code to 31. Is this still correct? Some of our coders felt that code 27 or 30 would be more appropriate.
Is the removal of the contralateral tonsil incidental removal or do we code it under Surgery of Other Regional Site, Distant Site, or Distant Lymph Nodes? If it is coded, would 5 be the correct code?
","Assign code 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy, bilateral tonsillectomy]. Do not code removal of the contralateral tonsil under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. Surgery to remove regional tissue with the primary site during the same procedure is coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.
","2003" "20031018","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Uvula): Is a stage T2 tumor described on the physical exam as an ""ulcerated mass occupying uvula midline soft palate, and extending into the right soft palate. It does not extend into the tonsil area nor into the retromolar trigone"" coded to 30 [localized, NOS] or 40 [tumor crosses midline]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD-extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. This is mucosal spread (since there is no muscle in the uvula). Soft palate and uvula are handled as a single site, and extension from uvula to soft palate is not addressed in EOD.
","2003" "20031017","Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: Does code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions; autopsy only case] or code 1 [ Cancer-directed surgery not recommended] have priority when coding this field for extensive tumors not surgically treated because of existing comorbidities? See discussion.","Example:
Patient has Stage IVA carcinoma of the tongue. The physician states that patient is not felt to be a good surgical candidate secondary to multiple medical frailties. Patient is treated with beam radiation.
In this case, how do we code Reason for No Site Specific Surgery? Do we use code 2 because surgery was contraindicated due to co-existing medical conditions or do we use code 1 because the tumor is very extensive and surgery would probably not be done anyway?
","SEER has not established a priority for assigning the Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site codes. Assign the code which best describes the reason surgery was not performed.
Example: Assign code 2, Contraindicated due to patient risk factors. According to the physician, this is the reason that surgery was not performed.
","2003" "20031016","Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Will you clarify the use of code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] versus code 27 [excisional biopsy] when there is no clinical description of a tumor and the pathology report describes more than one specimen from surgery performed on the vocal cords? See discussion.
","Specimen A is labeled vocal cord biopsy. Specimen B is labeled left true vocal cord nodule. For specimen B the gross portion of the pathology report describes a .5 cm tissue portion. Is the term ""nodule"" enough information to code this as an excision? Can we code site specific surgery to code 20 or 27?
","Code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] based on information from the size and description of the specimen.
","2003" "20031015","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of ""any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement"" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion.","A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates ""small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy."" The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form.","For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region].
The statement ""For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement"" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are ""small"" ""without convincing adenopathy."" In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative.
","2003" "20031013","EOD-Extension--Pleura: How do you code this field for a pleural mesothelioma with negative pleural effusion?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Pleural effusion is disregarded if it is unknown, NOS or benign. Use other information on the case to stage.","2003" "20031012","EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion.","Breast case described clinically as a ""breast mass and nodal metastases"" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement.
","2003" "20031010","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive ""neck nodes"" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the ""neck"" are distant, rather than regional, for lung.","2003" "20031009","Reportability/Behavior Code--Soft Tissue: Is a final diagnosis of a forearm mass diagnosed as ""Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma [see note]"" reportable? The NOTE reads ""Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a low grade borderline lesion with a tendency for local recurrence, but a very low potential for distant metastases."" Is behavior /1 or /3?","","Angiomatoid malignant fibrous histiocytoma is reportable with a behavior code of /3 according to ICD-O-3. The Final Diagnosis takes precedence over the ""note.""","2003" "20031008","Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: Is 8316/3 [Cyst associated renal cell carcinoma] the appropriate code for 1) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, 2) Renal cell carcinoma mass with cystic areas and 3) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, ICD-O-3 histology code 8316 is the correct code for the three examples above.
There are two categories of cyst-associated renal cell carcinomas: Renal cell carcinoma originating in a cyst, and Cystic renal cell carcinoma.
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.
","2003" "20031007","EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion.","Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized.","2003" "20031006","EOD/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If a melanoma primary site is other than skin, vulva, penis, or scrotum should these fields be coded using melanoma schemes? See discussion.","Should a melanoma of the cervix be coded using the melanoma or the cervix schemes for these fields?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use the EOD and surgery code schemes for cervix uteri. The EOD scheme for melanoma excludes melanoma of the cervix uteri. The surgery code scheme for skin excludes cervix uteri.","2003" "20031005","Histology (Pre-2007): Do the terms ""keratinizing"" or ""non-keratinizing"" have to be present in the final diagnosis to use codes 8071 through 8073? See discussion.","Should ""squamous cell carcinoma, small cell variant"" be coded to 8073 even though the final diagnoses does not include the phrase ""non-keratinizing?""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
It is acceptable to assign code 8073/3 for squamous cell carcinoma, small cell, NOS. Code squamous cell carcinoma, large cell, NOS to 8072/3. Code to non-keratinizing unless the pathology report specifies keratinizing.
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.
","2003" "20031004","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: When would one use codes 30-33 for this field on a skin primary?","","Surgery of Primary Site codes 30-33 under ""skin"" are used for various types of biopsies followed by a gross excision of the lesion. The two procedures (biopsy and gross excision) may be performed on different days, at different facilities, by different physicians as long as both procedures are performed during the first course of treatment.
Answer applies to both pre-2002 and 2003+ surgury code definitions.
","2003" "20031002","Histology (Pre-2007)--Cervix: Is 8384/3 [adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] a specific histology type that must be stated or does it apply to any adenocarcinoma arising in the endocervical? Should the ICD-O-3 histology code of 8384/3 [Adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] be used for final diagnoses of ""adenocarcinoma of the endocervix"" or ""adenocarcinoma of the cervix""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Histology code 8384 is for adenocarcinoma of endocervical type. This specific type (endocervical) must be part of the diagnosis in order to assign code 8384. This histology code is not to be used for Adenocarcinoma, NOS of the endocervix or cervix.
Adenocarcinoma of endocervical type can be diagnosed in other tissues and if so it will be stated as endocervical type. Adenoca of the endocervix would be coded to plain Adenoca.
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.
","2003" "20031001","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).
","2003" "20021213","Reportability/Behavior Code--Bone Marrow: Is T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia SEER reportable? Pages 102, 147, 156, 160-162 and 167 of the ICD-O-3 list it as 9831/1, but on page 17 this is listed as 9831/3.","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia [9831] is a very indolent form of leukemia. It was assigned a behavior code of 1 by the editors of ICD-O-3 (as noted on pages 102, 147, 156 160-162, and 167 of the ICD-O-3 manual). The table on page 17 is the World Health Organization list of hematopoietic and lymphoid tumors. WHO recognizes TCLGLL as a malignancy. The disease is infrequently symptomatic enough to be diagnosed. However, when any of the terms listed with code 9831 are described as malignant or aggressive, report to SEER as a malignancy with a behavior code of /3.
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.
","2002" "20021210","Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When there is a delay between the clinical diagnosis of a malignancy and the surgical resection of the primary site, can the resection be used to code the date of diagnosis, extension, size of the primary tumor, and histology? See discussion.","For example, mammogram March 28th states ""certainly represents malignancy."" Nothing else done until November 1st when pt presents w/skin retraction on PE and bone mets. A mastectomy November 6th shows ""ductal ca w/dermal lymphatic invasion and tumor measuring 3.5 cm.""
How is the date of diagnosis, extension, tumor size & histology coded for this case?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Date of Diagnosis to March. Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Histology can be upgraded from a clinical histology to a pathological histology anytime.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in coding extension, you need to assess whether there has been progression of disease or not. If progression of disease is verified, do not code extension using the surgical information from November. Code the extension and tumor size based on the mammogram and physical examination at the time of the mammogram, if available.
If no progression of disease is verified, use surgical information to code extension and tumor size.
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.
","2002" "20021209","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Rectosigmoid: How do you code these fields for a scan-based clinically staged T3 N1 rectosigmoid primary in a patient who received chemotherapy and radiation prior to a resection that demonstrated invasion only into the muscularis and no positive lymph nodes?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Use the best information available, in this case, the clinical staging, to code EOD. Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Invasion through muscularis propria or muscularis, NOS] and the EOD Lymph Node field to 3 [Regional lymph node(s) NOS] because the case had a clinical stage of T3 N1. EOD is coded using the most extensive clinical or pathologic stage.
","2002" "20021208","Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery: Could you explain why this field would be coded to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] or 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] for a case that presents with distant metastasis at diagnosis?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2002:
Code the Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery field to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] for patients who present with either a primary site or histology for which surgery is not a standard treatment. Also use code 1 for those patients who present with distant disease for a primary site that is typically treated surgically. Patients with distant metastasis typically do not have surgery performed as part of first course of treatment.
Code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] is used when surgery would normally be recommended for the site (given the current stage of the tumor) but other medical conditions pose too much of a risk for the patient to undergo surgery.
","2002" "20021207","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: How do you code this field when the gross description on the pathology report states ""nodal tissue is matted"" but only 1/18 lymph nodes is found to contain micrometastatsis per the microscopic description of the report?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 1 [Micrometastasis] because the matted nodal tissue was found to contain only one node with micrometastasis when examined microscopically. Coding priority is given to the microscopic description over the gross description.
","2002" "20021206","EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of ""less than or equal to 25%""? See discussion.","""insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as ""less than or equal to 25%"", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.
","2002" "20021205","EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is ""erosion"" synonymous with ""ulceration"" for melanoma cases?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term ""erosion"" as a synonym for ""ulceration"" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.
","2002" "20021204","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.","Path states ""microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm.""
What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?
","Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.
If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.
","2002" "20021202","Primary Site--Head & Neck (Middle ear): How do you code site for a skull based tumor consistent with a low grade papillary adenocarcinoma of ""endolymphatic sac origin""?","","Code Primary Site to C30.1 [Middle ear]. The endolymphatic sac is part of the inner ear labyrinth located with in the petrous portion of the temporal bone.","2002" "20021201","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.
2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).
3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].
","2002" "20021200","Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to ""watch and see what happens"" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a ""metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary""?","","Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary.","2002" "20021199","Primary Site/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: What codes are used in these fields when both regional lymph nodes and an extra-nodal site are involved with lymphoma and there is not a clear statement from the clinician as to the primary site? See discussion.
","In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site to C08.0 [submandibular gland] and use the surgery code schemes that apply to that site (Parotid and Other Unspecified Glands). Physiologically, lymphoma cells in regional lymph nodes do not ""back-flow"" into the extralymphatic organ to involve it secondarily. As a result, the primary site is usually the extralymphatic organ with regional lymph node involvement. Do not be afraid to code an extralymphatic site as primary when that site and its regional nodes are involved.
If the lymph nodes are not regional to the extra-nodal involved site and the primary site cannot be determined, code the primary site to C77.9 [Lymph node, NOS].
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.
","2002" "20021197","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Breast: How should this field be coded when a mastectomy that removed 3 sentinel lymph nodes is later followed by an axillary lymph node dissection that removed 17 lymph nodes? Should all of the lymph node information be coded to this field, even though the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field will be coded to the number of lymph nodes from the most definitive surgery (17)?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Yes, all of the lymph node information should be coded to the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field using code 7 [Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at different times].
The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field no longer exists for this time frame.
","2002" "20021194","Grade/Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the histology ""High grade dysplasia (adenocarcinoma in situ)"" or ""AIN III/High grade AIN""?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field for the first example to 8140/2 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS, in situ] and for the second example to 8077/2 [AIN, grade III]. For both of the cases code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined not stated or not applicable]. The 6th digit (grade code) of ICD-O-3 describes how much or how little a malignant tumor resembles the normal tissue from which it arose. In contrast, ""grade"" is used in the examples above to describe the degree of dysplasia, from mild dysplasia (low grade) to severe dysplasia (high grade). Do not record the degree of dysplasia in the 6th digit grade field.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules for histology coding instructions. 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.
","2002" "20021193","Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that ""by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2""?","","No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable].","2002" "20021190","Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology ""transitional cell and small cell carcinoma"" of the bladder? See discussion.","Code 8045/3 is used for combination codes that represent a mixture of small cell carcinoma and any other carcinoma. When we use this histology code for bladder primaries with mixed transitional cell and small cell carcinoma, we encounter a problem with the SEER edits (site and morphology conflict).","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Please see SEER Inquiry question ID number 20041104.
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.
","2002" "20021189","Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a 5/99 diagnosis of stage III follicular large cell lymphoma [9698/3] of the conjunctiva [C69.0] is followed with a 6/01 diagnosis of small cleaved lymphoma [9591/3] of the breast [C50.9]? See discussion.
","The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report as two primaries if that reflects the medical opinion for this case. The table is a guide, but does not overrule the clinician's opinion. These extranodal lymphomas are diagnosed in two different sites more than 2 months apart. They are listed as the same primary in the folding table because 9591/3 is generally a non-specific term and 9698/3 is a more specific cell type. If both histologies were diagnosed in the same organ or tissue, this is the same primary. However, the primary sites in this example are distinctly different.
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.
","2002" "20021188","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Testis: How many primaries should be reported when seminoma is diagnosed simultaneously in both testicles and both tumors are encapsulated?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Report this cases as two primaries, unless there is information in the record confirming one primary.
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.
","2002" "20021187","Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?
","","Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:
1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.
2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.
3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.
","2002" "20021185","Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular ""tumor"" while the pathology report states the submandibular ""gland"" was removed? See discussion.","The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a ""submandibular gland."" A further description on the pathology report included, ""the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen.""","For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total.","2002" "20021184","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only ""Stage IV"" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume ""palpable"" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.
The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of ""Stage IV"" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.
","2002" "20021183","Primary Site--Head & Neck: What site code is used to represent the following head and neck primary where there is not a clear statement of primary site? See discussion.","6/29/02: PE: 2-3 cm mass in the posterior pharynx that seems to arise from the right side of back of tongue.
6/29/02 CT soft tissue of neck: 3 cm right sided oropharyngeal mass, possibly arising from right tongue mass. There is near occlusion of airway at this level.
7/3/02 Excision of oropharyngeal tumor: Palpated mass could clearly be felt coming off the right lateral tongue in approximately the mid portion of the tongue near the tonsillar base.
","Code the Primary Site field to C02.9 [tongue, NOS], based on the information provided.","2002" "20021181","Radiation/Chemotherapy: How do we code radiation and chemotherapy when the only statement we have is that the patient is ""referred to either an oncologist or a radiation therapist""?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A referral does not mean that the radiation therapy or chemotherapy was actually recommended. These cases need follow-back to see if treatment was recommended and/or administered. Some registries code these cases as 8 [Radiation recommended, unknown if administered] or 88 [Chemotherapy recommended, unknown if it was administered] and routinely review all cases with 8 or 88 codes. Upon review, the codes are updated depending on the information found. If there is no information available, the code 8 or 88 is changed to 0 or 00 [None].","2002" "20021180","Surgery of Primary Site/Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Head & Neck (Nasal cavity): Should a small fragment of bone removed during a maxillectomy following a turbinectomy for a nasal turbinate primary be ""partial or total removal with other organ"" for coding this field? See discussion.
","Excision of a turbinate mass and partial turbinectomy revealed melanoma of the rt nasal turbinate. A subsequent rt medial maxillectomy was performed and a small fragment of bone was included in the resection and identified in the pathology report. Would the removed bone be ""connective or supportive tissue"" only for a Surgery of Primary Site code of 40 or is it another organ for a code of 60?
","The piece of bone was likely removed to access the maxillary sinus and would not be a separate organ. Use the ""All Other Sites"" surgery coding schemes to code this primary. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total surgical removal of primary site]. Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites]. The maxillectomy was not performed in continuity to the turbinectomy and should be coded in this field rather than the Surgery of Primary Site field.
","2002" "20021179","Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the ""physical exam"" category more than the ""operative"" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an ""operative"" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.
","2002" "20021178","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""poorly differentiated invasive transitional cell carcinoma with extensive squamous and focal glandular differentiation""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8120/33 [transitional cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The ICD-O-3 does not have a separate code for transitional cell carcinoma with squamous and/or glandular differentiation.
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.
","2002" "20021176","Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals ""infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive"" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with ""invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ"" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section.","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.
Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple primaries.
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.
","2002" "20021175","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.
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.
","2002" "20021174","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion.","For example, if the original diagnosis is ""poorly differentiated carcinoma"" and the ROS diagnosis is ""squamous cell carcinoma,"" would the morphology code be 8070/33?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).
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.
","2002" "20021173","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of ""in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma""? See discussion.","The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].
The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression ""atypical papillary squamous epithelium"" does not modify the cancer histology.
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.
","2002" "20021172","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.
Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example.
","2002" "20021171","Date Therapy Initiated: How would you estimate the date treatment began for a patient who was treated elsewhere and seen only on an outpatient basis at the current facility? See discussion.","July 19th: Retromolar trigone primary was diagnosed.
August 8th note states, ""Pt is not a surgical candidate due to multiple medical co-morbidities."" Sept 19th note states, ""Per Tumor Board, pt has been undergoing radiation for her head and neck cancer."" The exact starting date for radiation is not specified.
In the SEER Program Code Manual it states that ""In the absence of an exact date of treatment, the date of admission for that hospitalization during which the first cancer directed therapy was begun is an acceptable entry.""
","If possible, review the radiation treatment summary and outpatient records at the treating facility. If the date treatment began is not stated, look for the completion date and number of treatments, and calculate the first date of treatment.
If the date radiation started cannot be found or calculated, code the month as 09 for the example provided. The determination was made in August NOT to treat with surgery. We know that there was treatment in September.
","2002" "20021168","Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent the histology ""endometrioid carcinoma with squamous differentiation"" for an endometrium primary?","","For cases diagnosed 2004-2006:
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
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.
","2002" "20021166","EOD-Extension--Kidney: If a ""tumor thrombus"" in a renal vein is discontinuous from the primary tumor in the kidney, is it still coded to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS], rather than 85 [Metastasis]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS]. A thrombus can be a bolus of tumor cells within a large vein that may or may not still be connected/contiguous with the primary tumor. However, both a discontinuous and contiguous thrombus are coded to 60.
","2002" "20021165","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.","Which size should be used for these examples?
1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.
2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.
1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.
2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.
","2002" "20021162","Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion.
","Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.
","Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be ""ancillary drugs"" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields.
","2002" "20021159","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous carcinoma.
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.
","2002" "20021158","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the primary site(s) for a patient who had a lymph node biopsy with the histology of ""large B cell lymphoma arising in the setting of low grade B cell lymphoma c/w marginal zone B cell lymphoma with plasmacytic features""? See discussion.","This patient also had a bone marrow biopsy that demonstrated ""low grade B cell lymphoma."" Per the clinician, ""Pt with discordant lymphoma. We will be approaching his lymphoma as two different diseases. The large B cell had cleared after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The low grade lymphoma is incurable.""","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code as two primaries with each arising in lymph nodes [C77._]. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone B cell lymphoma]. The histology for the second primary is 9680/3 [large B cell lymphoma].
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.
","2002" "20021157","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology for a lung biopsy of ""non-small cell carcinoma with features of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma""? See discussion.","Non-small cell carcinoma does not appear to be an NOS term in ICD-O-3. The term ""with features of"" indicates a majority of tumor. Which rule should be used to code histology?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and the Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/33 [adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated].
The term ""non-small cell carcinoma"" is used to represent a broad category of epithelial cancers. Non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] is grouped in the ICD-O-3 under ""Epithelial Neoplasms, NOS."" The term can be used by a pathologist when he rules out the fact that the patient has a small cell cancer by stating that the malignancy is a non-small cell type of cancer. In this case, the type of non-small cell cancer present in the specimen is adenocarcinoma.
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.
","2002" "20021156","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent site and histology for BSO specimen with a diagnosis, ""Left and right adnexa: poorly differentiated serous carcinoma. Comment: The carcinoma occurs as multiple nodules within adnexal soft tissues. Direct involvement of ovaries is not seen, supporting an extraovarian origin."" See discussion.","Per our pathologist consultant, the site should be pelvic peritoneum [C481] and the histology is primary serous papillary carcinoma of peritoneum [8461/3]. Does SEER agree?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site to C481 [Specified parts of peritoneum] and the Histology field to 8461/3 [primary serous papillary carcinoma of peritoneum].
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.
","2002" "20021154","Primary Site: What code is used to represent the primary site for a ""teratocarcinoma with features of embryonal carcinoma"" removed from the thigh muscle in a patient with x-ray negative testicles? See discussion.
","The case was reviewed by AFIP and called ""extratesticular."" Per our pathology consultant, the site should be coded to unknown because it is very doubtful that the tumor was primary in the soft tissue of the thigh. According to him, such tumors don't originate exclusively in the testes, but tend to occur along the central axis such as the mediastinum or retroperitoneum. If an extratesticular tumor arises in either of these areas, the primary site should be code to the mediastinum or the peritoneum rather than to unknown. Lesions primary in the testicle may also undergo maturation with fibrosis and involution. This process often leaves little evidence of the original tumor in the testis.
","Code the Primary Site field to C809 [unknown] for this case. The thigh tumor is a metastatic site.
","2002" "20021153","Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is ""histological grade"" another way of saying ""tubule formation"" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion.","Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate.","Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade.","2002" "20021152","Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for ""chordoma"" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?","","Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.
Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any ""chordoma"" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).
","2002" "20021151","Reportability: A ""gastrointestinal stromal tumor"" (GIST) is not always stated to be ""malignant"" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.
","Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.
Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word ""malignant"", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called ""malignant"" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as ""malignant.""
","The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.
","2002" "20021150","SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.","1. We receive ""straggler"" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
","Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.","2002" "20021149","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion.","A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled ""tumor"" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a ""separate specimen"" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.
If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.
","2002" "20021147","Other Cancer Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is ""aspirin"" treatment for primary polycythemia? See discussion.
","Aspirin is listed as treatment for ""thrombocythemia"" in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases but not for ""primary polycythemia.""
","Do not code aspirin as treatment for primary polycythemia (polycythemia vera).
","2002" "20021146","Primary Site--Lymphoma: Is the primary site likely to be extranodal for a lymphoma that presents in an extranodal site and lymph nodes which are regional for that site? Is the primary site also likely to be extranodal if an extranodal site and lymph nodes are excised? See discussion.","Example: Work-up included a negative CXR. A CT showed multiple dilated loops of small bowel consistent with obstruction and nodular prominence at the base of bladder. Laparotomy with resection of small bowel and multiple biopsies of enlarged mesentric lymph nodes performed. Final path diagnosis: Lymphoma in a ""mesenteric mass"" and in ""small bowel."" There was no mention of lymph nodes in the final diagnosis and the detailed micro described the mesenteric mass as just adipose tissue replaced by lymphoma. However, the gross for that specimen states 4 lymph nodes were found in the fat. The small bowel micro described an ulcerated lesion of the small bowel extending into muscularis.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C17.9 [small bowel] for the example. When an extranodal organ and that organ's regional nodes are involved, the extranodal site is most likely the primary, unless there is extension from the regional nodes to the organ. If the primary site cannot be determined for a lymphoma diagnosed in both a nodal and extranodal site, code to C77.9 [lymph nodes NOS].
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.
","2002" "20021144","EOD-Extension--Colon: What code is used to represent this field for a mid-ascending colon primary that invades through muscularis propria and into subserosal fibroadipose tissue that also presents with a ""separate serosal nodule"" of carcinoma within cecum that is consistent with a tumor implant (cT3, N0, M1)?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis], because the nodule of carcinoma in the cecum is not contiguous with the mid-ascending primary colon tumor.
","2002" "20021143","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion.","How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding.","For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.
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.
","2002" "20021142","Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed ""benign"" tumor is later discovered to have ""metastasized"", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified?","","Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered.","2002" "20021141","EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.","The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.
Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.
","2002" "20021140","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with ""pre-epigolottic space"" invasion?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to ""pre-epiglottic space"" is equivalent to extension to ""pre-epiglottic tissue.""
","2002" "20021139","Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion.","Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion.","For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based.","2002" "20021138","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when a pathology report describes a tumor as a low grade neoplasm consistent with a specific histologic type (e.g., Low grade neoplasm consistent with carcinoid)?","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Low grade].","2002" "20021137","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Soft Tissue: Does SEER agree that one primary of the soft tissues of pelvis [C49.5] should be reported when a pathologic diagnosis for bilateral herniorrhaphies is ""right and left inguinal hernias with low grade spindle cell sarcoma""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. This is one primary and should be coded to C49.5 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of pelvis]. According to Rule A in ICD-O-3, the type of tumor (""sarcoma"") indicates origin from a particular tissue, resulting in the primary site code of C49.5 [Inguinal region, NOS] for this sarcoma.
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.
","2002" "20021136","Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for ""atypical fibroxanthoma"" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of ""superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma""? See discussion.","Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called ""residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma"" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a ""malignant fibrous histiocytoma."" Per an August 2000 outpatient note, ""The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of ""The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma."" Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.
If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.
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.
","2002" "20021133","First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?
","","Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.
Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.
","2002" "20021132","EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.
Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:
1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.
2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.
3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.
If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.
","2002" "20021131","EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion.","Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease.
","2002" "20021130","EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.
","Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.
","2002" "20021129","Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of ""myelodysplastic syndrome"" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of ""myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state""?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.
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.
","2002" "20021127","Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code--Thyroid: What code is used to represent the histology ""micropapillary carcinoma"" of the thyroid? See discussion.","The ICD-O-3 includes ""micropapillary intraductal (C50._)"" [8507/2], ""micropapillary serous (C56.9)"" [8460/3] and ""micropapillary transitional cell (C67._) [8131/3] but does not seem to include a micropapillary code for a thyroid primary.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8507/3 [micropapillary carcinoma]. According to rule H, the topography code listed in the ICD-O is disregarded if the tumor is known to arise in another site. In this case, the site is thyroid [C73.9] so the topography code of breast [C50._] can be disregarded for this histology. Apply the matrix principle to change the Behavior Code from 2 to 3.
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.
","2002" "20021126","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.","Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.
We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.
We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.
","2002" "20021125","Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: What code is used to represent the histology of ""mixed germ cell tumor, embryonal carcinoma and mature teratoma"" of the testis? See discussion.","Is the teratoma required to be described as ""immature"" or ""malignant"" in order to use the histology code of 9081/3 [mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma]?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 9081/3 [Teratocarcinoma, mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma], in both ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3.
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.
","2002" "20021124","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.
","1. Path report: ""Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas."" Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.
2. Path report: ""Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma.""
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.
Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.
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.
","2002" "20021122","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a path diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type with apocrine features, does the term ""apocrine"" modify the term cribriform or does it represent another type of ductal carcinoma in situ? See discussion.","It can be difficult to determine if two terms mentioned in a pathology report are describing different aspects of the same morphology or if the two terms are describing two different morphologies.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8401/2 [Apocrine carcinoma in situ]. According to our pathologist consultant ""Because apocrine is the more unusual tumor, and pulling it out of the cribriform category keeps the latter a little cleaner (because most cribriform ductal carcinoma in situ is not particularly apocrine), I am inclined to code to the histology to apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ.""
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.
","2002" "20021121","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries are reportable in a patient treated with a bilateral nephrectomy that revealed multiple tumors within each kidney and the histology in both the left and the right kidney was ""renal cell carcinoma, indeterminate type: multiple histologically identical tumors"" and the clinical discharge diagnosis was ""bilateral renal cell carcinoma, probably surgically cured""? See discussion.","The SEER manual states ""If only one histologic type is reported and if both sides of a paired site are involved within two months of diagnosis, a determination must be made as to whether the patient has one or two independent primaries."" Frequently, the only statement we have is that ""bilateral organs are involved."" Additional guidelines for determining number of primaries would be helpful.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Report this case as two primaries, left and right kidneys. According to our pathologist consultant, ""The description sounds like bilateral multiple primaries. Multicentricity in the same kidney occurs in about 4% of all cases, and bilaterality in 0.5 to 3% (Atlas of Tumor Pathology, Tumors of the Kidney, Bladder, and Related Urinary Structures).""
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.
","2002" "20021119","Radiation--Choroid: How do you code treatment involving a ""radioactive iodine plaque"" for choroidal melanomas?","","Code the Radiation field to 2 [Radioactive implants]. Codes for radiation are based on HOW the radiation is delivered, rather than the particular type of radioactive material used.
Radioactive eye-plaques contain rice-sized iodine-125 or palladium-103 seeds which emit low energy photons. They are sewn or glued into the eye. The plaque remains for 5 to 7 days and is then removed.
","2002" "20021118","Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Should the term ""Pre-T"" be added to code 5 [T-cell] in the ICD-O-3 Table 22, 6th Digit Code for Immunophenotype Designation for Lymphoma and Leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 5 [T-cell] in the 6th digit of the ICD-O-3 morphology field when the terms ""pre-T cell"" or ""T-precursor"" are used. However, this is not an official change to ICD-O-3.
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.
","2002" "20021117","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: Is the prostatic urethra a new primary for a case with a history of recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer that was subsequently diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the prostatic urethra and had a subsequent clinical diagnosis of ""refractory bladder carcinoma""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the histology of the bladder primary is ""transitional cell carcinoma"" or ""papillary transitional cell carcinoma,"" do not code the prostatic urethra as a new primary. This is probably a case of intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the original tumor, rather than separate primaries. The clinical diagnosis supports this view.
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.
","2002" "20021115","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: In coding lymph node involvement for a testicular primary, should we use code 5 (Size not stated) when there is not a pathologic size of the lymph node provided? See discussion.","Should Note 1 in the testis EOD be changed to ""Metastases in lymph nodes are now measured by the size of the lymph node as stated in pathology report""? The SEER EOD-88, 3rd Edition, states that ""when size of regional lymph nodes is required, code from the pathology report.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For testis cases only, ""metastasis in lymph nodes"" is measured by the size of the lymph node or the lymph node mass. It is acceptable to code the size of this metastasis from a CT scan or other imaging when a pathology specimen is not available for testicular primaries.
","2002" "20021113","Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Pancreas: Should an embolization of liver metastasis for a pancreas primary be coded as treatment?","","Code ""embolization"" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) to a metastatic site in Surgical procedure of Other Site. Assign code 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed].
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
","2002" "20021112","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion.","Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is ""Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB.""","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this case.
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.
","2002" "20021111","Histology/Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Do you agree with coding a diagnosis of Nasal NK/T cell lymphoma to 9719/38?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 8 [NK cell] rather than 5 [T-cell]. Code the Histologic Type to 9719/38 [NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal and nasal-type with Cell indicator of NK (8)].
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.
","2002" "20021108","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology of ""well differentiated low grade lipoma-like liposarcoma (atypical lipoma)""? See discussion.","The pathologic microscopic description states, ""Well differentiated lipoma-like liposarcoma, sometimes termed atypical lipoma. This tumor will behave in a low grade malignant fashion. Slow growing recurrences can be expected. Metastatic disease is very rare unless the tumor dedifferentiates.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8851/3 [Liposarcoma, well differentiated] and the Grade to 1 [Well differentiated]. This histology is reportable to SEER.
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.
","2002" "20021106","Histology (Pre-2007)/Diagnostic Confirmation: What code is used to represent the histology that initially presents on uterine curettage as a hydatidiform mole and after pulmonary metastases develop a month later, the clinical diagnosis is ""metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma.
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] based on the information above. However, if imaging, direct visualization, or another method identified the pulmonary metastases, then code the Diagnostic Confirmation accordingly.
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.
","2002" "20021105","Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.","1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.
2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.
","Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.
1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.
2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.
","2002" "20021103","Surgery of Primary Site/First Course Treatment--Liver: If disease progression is so rapid that the initial therapy plan is changed before patient receives any therapy, would ""no therapy"" be the first course? See discussion.","Patient was diagnosed with liver cancer on 8/23 and on 9/6 a hepatectomy was recommended. However, patient was hospitalized on 9/19 with ascites. Patient underwent embolization instead of a hepatectomy during that admission.","Code the ""embolization"" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) in Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS].
The embolization is coded as first course of therapy for this case because it seems that this patient was not adequately staged until 9/19 -- there is no indication on this case of the stage of disease in August or early September. Furthermore, no treatment was started before the embolization. Therefore, the ascites is not ""progression of disease"" in this case -- it is taken into account as part of the initial stage of disease.
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
","2002" "20021101","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: How do we code these fields for a tumor that is predominantly a ""well differentiated liposarcoma"" [8851/31] that has a less predominent type of ""dedifferentiated liposarcoma"" [8858/33]? If we code the predominant cell type [8851/3] and the worst grade [3], the case will not pass edits because well-differentiated liposarcoma requires a differentiation code of 1. See discussion.","Example: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with the following features: size 22 cm, FNCLCC grade 3 of 3 [high grade]. Path comment: The tumor consists of predominantly well-differentiated sclerosing subtype liposarcoma and areas of high grade spindle cell (non-lipogenic) sarcoma. The area of high grade spindle cell sarcoma measured up to 7.5 cm.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8858/33 [Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, grade 3]. The pathologist gives a final designation of Dedifferentiated liposarcoma and then provides further details in the comment that do not negate the final designation.
Grade is usually coded independent of the cell type. There are a few Catch-22 situations, like this one, in which the grade is built into the name of the cell type.
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.
","2002" "20021100","Primary Site: How do we code the primary site for a malignancy that occurs in parenchyma located in an ectopic site? See discussion.","1. Patient presented with a subcutaneous nodule in right axilla. Pathologic impression by initial and reviewing pathologists is that the lesion represents a breast adenocarcinoma arising in ectopic mammary parenchyma. Subsequent breast biopsies were negative.
2. Patient presented with right branchial cleft cyst. The pathologist states the cyst is a primary thyroid adenocarcinoma arising in an ectopic focus of thyroid tissue. The subsequent total thyroidectomy is negative.
","Code the primary site to the location of the malignancy.
1. Code the Primary Site field to C76.1 [Axilla NOS].
2. Code the Primary Site field to C10.4 [Branchial cleft].
","2002" "20021099","Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of ""low grade malignant potential/borderline"" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion.","1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.
2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Both tumors are reportable to SEER.
1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].
2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
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.
","2002" "20021098","Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent the histology with a final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, signet ring type when the comment suggests a ""mixed histologic pattern""? See discussion.","The following is the comment from the pathology report: ""The histologic features reveal a tumor with a mixed histologic pattern. A diffuse infiltrate of signet ring cells and a second pattern of amphophilic polygonal cells. The latter elements suggest neuroendocrine differentiation, but IHC stains fail to reveal endocrine attributes in these cells.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8490/3 [Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma]. Code the specific subtype when the diagnosis says ""generic carcinoma, something type."" Neuroendocrine differentiation was suspected, but not supported by the IHC stains. A combination code is not appropriate for this example.
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.
","2002" "20021096","Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion.","1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma.
2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3.
3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3).
4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4).
","For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward:
1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis.
2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.
3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.
4) Grade 3. ""Grade 3 out of 4"" is coded 3 and is more precise than ""high grade.""
","2002" "20021094","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: If the patient received chemo, should ""bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy"" be coded as involved lymph nodes in the EOD lymph node involvement field for a testicular primary treated with an orchiectomy that rendered a path diagnosis of ""seminoma confined to the testicle""? See discussion.","Per an orchiectomy path diagnosis a seminoma was confined to the testicle. The only other workup, other than a scrotal ultrasound, was a staging CT scan that revealed bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy in abdomen and pelvis, as well as mediastinal adenopathy. There was also a peripheral pulmonary nodule. No final clinical diagnosis or stage was provided in the chart. Following the orchiectomy the patient was treated with chemo. Should we also have coded distant site lung involvement?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown] because ""adenopathy"" is not used to code lymph node involvement. The physician varied from the usual treatment for a localized testicular carcinoma, which is an orchiectomy. The physician proceeded immediately to chemotherapy as further treatment. It is not clear whether the decision to treat with chemo was based on the nodes and/or lung being involved.
Search the record for the physician's opinion regarding distant metastasis. Do not code distant involvement based on a peripheral pulmonary nodule seen on CT without further proof. If no further information is available, code the EOD-Extension field to 99.
","2002" "20021093","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the ""tumor size"" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.
","2002" "20021092","Histology/Primary Site--CLL/SLL: How should these fields be coded for a ""chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma"" [CLL/SLL] diagnosed on a lymph node biopsy that is referred to by the clinician as CLL? See discussion.","Does the clinician's reference to this disease as CLL change the SEER rule to code to SLL if the disease arises in a lymph node or solid tissue?","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9670/3 [Malignant lymphoma, small lymphocytic, NOS] and the Primary Site field to C77._ [lymph nodes] when CLL/SLL is diagnosed in lymph node or solid tissue, even if the clinician refers to CLL. When CLL/SLL is diagnosed in the blood, code as leukemia.
Refer to clarification #6 on the ICD-O-3 Errata and Clarifications. ""...if disease is diagnosed only in the blood or bone marrow, code the primary site to C42.1, bone marrow and assign the leukemia morphology code. If the diagnosis is made on any other tissue (typically lymph nodes, lymphatic structures, breast, and stomach), code to the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology. If the diagnosis is made on both blood or bone marrow and a tissue biopsy, code the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology.""
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.
","2002" "20021091","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms ""thrombocytosis, NOS"" and ""thrombocythemia, NOS"" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.
","Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.
","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms ""thrombocytosis, NOS"" and ""thrombocythemia, NOS"" are not reportable to SEER.
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.
","2002" "20021090","Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: How should the Primary Site field be coded when no resection is done and it is uncertain whether the primary site is in the ovary or the peritoneum? See discussion.","CT: ascites, omental cake and peritoneal studding. H&P impression: probable ovarian or peritoneal primary. Repeat CT: no enlarged adnexal mass seen to suggest ca of ovary, but possibility couldn't be ruled out. Omental bx: Metastatic ca. Comment: ""IHC stains have been performed and are not typical of ovarian ca, although do not exclude an ovarian primary."" After the bx, there were two clinical diagnoses written a month apart with no evidence of further work-up between those dates. The first diagnosis was ""ovarian ca"". The second was ""Peritoneal carcinomatosis 2 month ago; Primary is unknown, possibly ovarian.""","Use the best information available to identify the primary site. In this case, it is the physician's clinical assessment. Code the Primary Site to C56.9 [Ovary] for this example because the ovary is indicated to be the primary site according to the physicians involved.
When there is no surgical procedure involving the removal of the ovaries, code the Primary Site based on the clinical assessment of the disease location. If the disease is only noted to be in the peritoneum, code site to peritoneum, NOS. If the disease is seen clinically in both the ovary and the peritoneum, code site to ovary.
","2002" "20021089","Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: When ovaries are not found on a resection or if the ovaries removed are negative for malignancy, but the clinician refers to the adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as being an ""ovarian"" primary, should the primary site be coded as ovary, pelvic peritoneum or unknown? See discussion.","Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an ""ovarian"" primary.
Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an ""ovarian"" primary.
","Code the Primary Site for both examples to peritoneum [C48.2]. When the physician refers to a case as ""ovarian"" even though the ovaries are negative or when the histology is an ovarian histology, such as papillary serous ca, the primary site should be coded to the peritoneum. Code the Primary Site to where it appears the disease is arising.","2002" "20021088","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: SEER Program Code Manual rule #3 on page 11 states ""If a new cancer of the same histology is diagnosed in the same site after two months, consider this new cancer a separate primary unless stated to be recurrent or metastatic. Should vulva and vagina be exceptions to rule #3, as are prostate and bladder?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. There is no exception for vulva or vagina.
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.
","2002" "20021087","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented when a1998 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord is followed by a 1999 diagnosis of in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (called ""recurrent"" by the clinician), and in 2001 there is another invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (no statement of recurrence)? Would your answer be any different if no statement of ""recurrent"" had been made in 1999?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code this case as two primaries, an invasive true vocal cord primary in 1998 and another invasive true vocal cord primary in 2001.
If there had been no statement of recurrence for the 1999 in situ diagnosis and the 1999 diagnosis was more than two months following the 1998 diagnosis, this case would be coded as three primaries.
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.
","2002" "20021082","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.
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.
","2002" "20021081","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Many melanoma patients have multiple occurrences over time that are not called recurrent and often are even in the same skin subsite, some in situ only and others alternating between in situ and invasive. Should these multiple occurrences really be new primaries?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Unless it is stated to be a RECURRENT or METASTATIC melanoma, record each melanoma as a separate primary when:
1. The occurrences are more than two months apart.
2. The fourth digit of the ICD-O topography code for skin [C44._] is different .
3. The first three digits of ICD-O-3 morphology code are different.
4. An in situ melanoma is followed by an invasive melanoma.
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.
","2002" "20021079","Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD Fields/Surgery of Primary Site--Abdomen, NOS: What codes are used to represent these fields for a case with a resection of the rectosigmoid and adjacent tumor mass that demonstrated no tumor in the rectosigmoid but extramural to the colon there was an endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising in association with an area of endometriosis (possibly within the pericolic soft tissue or in an ovarian remnant)?","","For cases diagnosed in 2003, code to:
Primary Site: C76.2 [abdomen, NOS]
Histology: 8380/3 [Endometrioid adenocarcinoma]
EOD size, extension, lymph node: 999, 99, 9 [Unknown]
Surgery of Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment]
Scope of Regional LN Surgery: 0 [None]
Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites].
","2002" "20021078","Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, ""Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall""?","","Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site.","2002" "20021077","Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--All Sites: How do you code these fields for a resected thyroid that is negative for any diagnostic abnormality and a left ovary that demonstrates ""papillary thyroid carcinoma arising in a cystic teratoma""? See discussion.","Teratomas occurring in the ovaries frequently contain various types of fully differentiated tissue that normally occur in other body parts. Should the primary be coded to the ovary or to the organ in which that type of tissue normally occurs?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to the organ in which the cancer arose. For this tumor, code the Primary Site field to C56.9 [ovary] and Histology to 8260/3 [papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Use the ovary EOD for tumors diagnosed 1998-2003.
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.
","2002" "20021074","Tumor Markers--Breast: If the ERA/PRA results reported differ for separate breast specimens removed for a single primary, do we code the results as positive or negative?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code both the Tumor Marker 1 and Tumor Marker 2 fields to 1 [positive] when a single primary breast tumor has both positive and negative ERA/PRA receptors.
","2002" "20021072","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: The path report provides a size for both the Paget disease and the underlying intraductal component in the breast. Should we assume the Paget disease to be invasive and code the size of the primary tumor to that invasive component? See discussion.","For example, path diagnosis for resection gave the size of the Paget disease as 1 mm and the size of the underlying intraductal tumor as 4 cm. Should size for this breast case be coded to 040 or 003, less than 3 mm.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 040 [4 cm], the size of the larger underlying intraductal tumor. Paget disease is classified according to the size of the underlying in situ or invasive tumor. Paget with an underlying in situ tumor is staged as in situ to match the AJCC classification of this disease process.
","2002" "20021070","CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase ""axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node"" or the phrase ""satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue""? See discussion.","A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled ""axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node"". The microscopic description for that specimen stated ""Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor"". The final path dx stated ""Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I"". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added ""If lymph node mets, this is a stage II.""","Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases.","2002" "20021069","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""infiltrating lobular carcinoma, solid and classical subtypes""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8520 [Lobular carcinoma].
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.
","2002" "20021066","Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion.","Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?","Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.
For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
","2002" "20021063","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: What code is used to represent this field when a path report from a lymph node biopsy or dissection describes lymph node ""portions"" or ""fragments""? See discussion.","1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?)
2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?)
3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?)
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The total number of lymph nodes examined is recorded in EOD-Num of Reg LN Examined. If the number of actual lymph nodes represented by the ""fragments"" or ""portions"" cannot be determined, assign code 96, 97, or 98 as appropriate.
1) Based on the terminology ""four portions of lymph node (singular)"" code to 01 despite ""dissection"" terminology.
2) Code to 97 based on ""fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)"" terminology and procedure identified as dissection.
3) Code to 97 based on statement of ""fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)"" for biopsy plus dissection.
","2002" "20021062","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for ""invasive ductal carcinoma with squamous differentiation""? Is ""squamous differentiation"" synonymous with ""squamous metaplasia""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8570/3 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. Our pathology consultant agrees that squamous metaplasia is synonymous with squamous differentiation.
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.
","2002" "20021061","Multiple Primaries/Histology--Mycosis Fungoides/Cutaneous T cell Lymphoma: Physicians often use the terms cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and mycosis fungoides interchangeably and yet the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that these 2 diagnoses represent separate primaries. Do these cases represent one primary? If so, what histologic type should they be coded to?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The patient does not have two different malignancies. Code the Histology field to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides], the specific type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Mycosis fungoides is one of several types of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Physicians often refer to mycosis fungoides by the ""umbrella term"" cutaneous T cell lymphoma.
The table indicates that the broad category of ""T/NK-cell NHL"" (which includes CTCL) and mycosis fungoides are presumably separate primaries because several entities are included in that broad category. In the specific case cited above, one entity (CTCL) within the broad category (T/NK-cell NHL) and mycosis fungoides are not separate primaries.
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.
","2002" "20021060","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: The EOD Manual instructs us not to code the size of a cyst. Can we code the size of tumor lesions described as being multicystic, multiloculated, or as a complex mass with cystic areas? See discussion.","Example 1: Large multicystic ovarian mass lesion measuring 10 cm. Sections through the specimen show a multicystic and solid mass with abundant fluid exuding from the cut surfaces (Size of the solid portions is not stated).
Example 2: A brain MRI: 9-cm. complex mass with cystic areas.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes, if the cystic mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field based on the size of the mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description. For the examples in the discussion section, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to: 1) 100 [10 cm]. 2) 090 [9 cm].
As a point of interest, the size of tumor for ovarian and brain primaries is not used in either analysis or as a prognostic indicator for survival. Therefore, spending time separating the cystic and solid portions of the tumor is unnecessary.
","2002" "20021059","Surgery of Primary Site--Soft Tissue: What code is used to represent this field when an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue sarcoma is followed two weeks later with a wide excision (re-excision)?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 26 [partial resection]. According to the CoC, ""Excision"" in the surgery codes refers to the lesion and ""partial resection"" refers to the organ. The biopsy is a local excision (code 25). The wide resection is code 26, presuming that more than just the remaining lesion was removed.","2002" "20021058","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When simultaneously diagnosed breast tumors of the same histology in the same breast are stated by the pathologist and/or clinician to be more than one primary, should these be reported as multiple primaries? See discussion.
","For example, based on special pathology studies that showed a difference in appearance between tumors, a pathologist may state that two ductal, NOS tumors diagnosed at the same time in the same breast represent two primaries.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as a single primary. Follow the guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual for determining multiple primaries. Simultaneous multiple lesions of the same histologic type in the same site (same breast) are a single primary for SEER, even though the pathologist may perform special studies and state that the patient has more than one primary.
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.
","2002" "20021056","Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are ""pattern"", ""architecture"", and ""architectural pattern"" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?
","","For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:
The terminology ""Architectural pattern: ____________,"" when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard ""pattern"" and ""architecture"" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.
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.
","2002" "20021055","EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as ""portal vein thrombosis"" or ""extensive infiltration of the liver"" or ""diffuse infiltration of the liver"" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.","1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of ""portal vein thrombosis""?
2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of ""extensive infiltration of the liver"" or ""diffuse infiltration of the liver""?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.
2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when ""extensive infiltration"" or ""diffuse infiltration"" is stated.
","2002" "20021054","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""invasive ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and invasive lobular carcinoma""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule 1 of the Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, because the tumor is both lobular and ductal.
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.
","2002" "20021053","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.","1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.
2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.
3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.
4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?
5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)
6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:
1) 10
2) 10
3) 10
4) 99
5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76
6) 85
","2002" "20021052","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?
1) Stricture of the common bile duct
2) Common bile duct is narrowed
3) Common bile duct is obstructed
4) Common bile duct dilation
5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct
6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.
","2002" "20021051","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion.","For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.
If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].
However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).
","2002" "20021050","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.","Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is ""surrounded"" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].
Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and ""root"" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.
","2002" "20021048","EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion.","For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field.
","2002" "20021047","Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code ""random bladder biopsies"" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is ""focal carcinoma in situ""?","","Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder.","2002" "20021046","Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion.","Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium.
Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests...
Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.
If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.
If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria.
","2002" "20021045","Histology/Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology ""high grade malignant lymphoma with features of so called blastic NK cell cutaneous lymphoma [hematodermic lymphoma]"" found on punch biopsy?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9709/3 [cutaneous lymphoma, NOS]. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 8 [NK cell].
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.
","2002" "20021044","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: Can histology and/or grade be coded from a metastatic site? See discussion.","Example 1: No pathology specimen is available from the primary site for a lung primary. Rib biopsy demonstrated ""anaplastic adenocarcinoma.""
Example 2: Lung tissue biopsy revealed ""poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma"" for a lung primary. Pleural effusion cytology was consistent with ""adenocarcinoma"".
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Example 1: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/39 [adenocarcinoma, NOS, grade not stated]. Because there was no microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, the histology may be coded from the microscopic examination of the tissue from a metastatic site. Do not code grade from a metastatic site regardless of whether the involvement of the metastatic site is by direct extension or by discontinuous metastases.
Example 2: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8046/33 [non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. Because there is a microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, that information should be used to code histology rather than a cytology of a metastatic site.
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.
","2002" "20021042","Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion.
","According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:
1) To preserve ovarian function.
2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.
","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given.
","2002" "20021041","First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy--All Sites: How do we code retinoic acid?","","The code for retinoic acid depends upon the primary site and histology of the tumor. Code retinoic acid (also called Vitamin A, tretinoin, ATRA, all-transretinoic acid or Vesanoid) in the Immunotherapy field as 01 [Immuno administered as first course therapy] for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This drug is given to patients as an alternative to chemotherapy.
For all other sites/histologies, code retinoic acid in the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field. Use code 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy] or 3 [Double-blind clinical trial, code not yet broken] if the drug is given as part of a protocol. If the drug is not being given as part of a protocol or you don't know whether it is part of a protocol, use code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].
","2002" "20021040","Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with ""Epithilone"" or ""Epothilone""?","","Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.","2002" "20021039","Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of ""Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)""? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III.","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order:
1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly)
2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II)
3. BR scores
4. BR grade
5. Nuclear grade
On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of ""II/III"" may be a typo that should state I/III.
","2002" "20021036","EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term ""no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa"" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
","2002" "20021034","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma with a mucinous component, the mucinous component is less than 50%""? See discussion.","For mucinous only, the tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous to be coded to the specific histology.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Because the mucinous component involves less than 50% of the tumor, the histology is not coded to mucinous. For mucinous only, the tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, to be coded to the specific histology.
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.
","2002" "20021031","Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion.","In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site?","Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field.","2002" "20021030","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all ""3-component differentiation systems"" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion.","Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation.","The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval.","2002" "20021029","Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Should the Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade (low, intermediate, high) have a higher priority than terminology (i.e., well differentiated)? See discussion.","1. Grade of infiltrating carcinoma 1) Nuclear grade low; 2) Histological grade-intermediate; 3) Mitotic rate-low, 4) BR score 4.
2. Poorly differentiated but grade II/III. Microscopic comment: Slides show infiltrating ca which is P.D. in that it forms no tubules, but is grade 2 out of 3 in the modified BR scheme. It is ductal type with large moderately pleomorphic tumor cells displaying few mitoses.
3. Invasive moderately differentiated duct cell carcinoma with the following features: Modified BR grade: III/III (2+3+3=8).
","For cases diagnosed prior to 2004:
Code the example cases as follows:
1. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology (""intermediate"") has the highest priority.
2. Grade 3. Terminology (""poorly differentiated"") has the highest priority.
3. Grade 2. Histologic grade terminology ""moderately differentiated"" has priority.
","2002" "20021028","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion.","Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the ""apex"" information or the ""cT1c"" information?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.
","2002" "20021027","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
","With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret ""2.0 cm ulcerated mass""? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
","2002" "20021026","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should Mohs surgery be code to 27 [Excisional biopsy] or 31 [Shave biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion]? See discussion.","Under surgery coding in the 5/22/01 SEER Abstractor/Coder Workshop book, page 20, it states that Mohs surgery should be coded as an excisional biopsy. The ACoS I&R dated 6/6/2001 states that it should be coded to 31.","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 34 [Mohs surgery, NOS], 35 [Mohs with 1-cm margin or less] or 36 [Mohs with more than 1-cm margin].","2002" "20021025","Histology: What code is used to represent the histology ""endometrioid adenocarcinoma, villoglandular type""?","","Assign code 8262/3 [Villous adenocarcinoma].
According to the WHO Classification of Tumours, Breast and Female Genital Organs (2003), villoglandular is one of four variants of endometroid adenocarcinoma. The corresponding ICD-O-3 code according to WHO is 8262/3.
","2002" "20021023","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion.
","For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown.
","2002" "20021022","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""non oat cell carcinoma""?","","For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. ""Non oat cell"" is a synonym for ""non-small cell.""
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.
","2002" "20021021","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Should we add the missing terms listed in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases to ICD-O-3 because these absent synonyms would not be identified during hematology casefinding? See discussion.","The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases gives a preferred term for each code followed by a list of synonyms, not all of which are listed in the ICD-O-3. Two examples are: 1) 9962/3 [Essential Thrombocythemia] has 6 synonymous terms listed, but the last three of them are not in ICD-O-3. 2) 9930/3 [Myeloid Sarcoma] has the synonym ""extramedullary myeloid tumor"" which is not in ICD-O-3.","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not add these synonyms to ICD-O-3. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases lists synonyms for the preferred terms to assist in the classification of these other terms. In the absence of a specific code for the synonym, code to the preferred term. For casefinding, these terms would be grouped in a broader category of hematologic diseases under an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 code and, therefore, will be identified during casefinding procedures using the disease index.
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.
","2002" "20021020","First Course Treatment: 1) When is Decadron (Dexamethasone) coded as cancer treatment? 2) When Decadron is given to a patient with multiple myeloma, is it coded as treatment only if given in combination with chemotherapy? See discussion.
","SEER Book 8 states that Decadron is an important therapeutic agent for treatment of multiple myeloma. In the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, Decadron is a hormonal treatment for multiple myeloma ""when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen"".
","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after:
1. Code hormone therapy to 01. Code any therapy administered to treat cancer tissue that achieves its effect on cancer tissue through a change in the hormone balance in the hormone therapy field. Decadron is coded for leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myelomas primaries. It is coded for other sites only when stated to be cancer-directed treatment.
2. Code hormone therapy to 01. Decadron should be coded as hormone therapy for multiple myeloma when given alone or as part of a first course of treatment chemotherapy regimen.
","2002" "20021018","First Course Treatment--Prostate: How do you code ""watchful waiting"" in these fields for prostate primaries?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: When ""watchful waiting"" is the first course of therapy for prostate cancer, code the case as follows:
Date Therapy Initiated: 000000
Surgery of Primary Site: 00
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: 0
Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 0
Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery: 1
Radiation: 0
Chemotherapy: 00
Hormone Therapy: 00
Immunotherapy: 00
Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures: 00
Other Cancer Directed Therapy: 0
","2002" "20021017","Measured Thickness--Melanoma: Can in situ melanoma cases have ""depth of invasion"" coded to something other than 999? See discussion.","Biopsy of the left arm: Melanoma, 0.2mm in thickness. The in situ component extends to a peripheral margin.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Measured Thickness (depth) field to 020 [0.2 mm] for this case.
In situ disease can have a depth of invasion because the surface epithelium can be of varying depths without the melanoma breaking through the basement membrane.
","2002" "20021016","Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code: What code is used to represent the histology ""foci of well differentiated intramucosal carcinoma [carcinoma in situ] arising on the surface of a tubular adenoma""? The pathologist referred to this colon biopsy as ""in situ"".","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8210 [adenocarcinoma in a tubular adenoma] and behavior code 2 [in situ]. ""In situ"" is specified by the pathologist.
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.
","2002" "20021015","Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions ""suspicious for but not diagnostic of"" and ""suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma"" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?","","For reportability, interpret ""suspicious for but not diagnostic of"" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase ""suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma"" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
","2002" "20021014","Reportability: Is ""Castleman's Disease"" reportable?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Castleman's Disease is not reportable to SEER. Synonyms for this disease process include: Castleman-Iverson Disease, benign giant lymph node hyperplasia, and angiofollicular mediastinal lymph node hyperplasia. Castleman's Disease is a rare disorder characterized by non-cancerous growths that may develop in the lymph node tissue throughout the body. The plasmacellular form of this disease may progress to lymphoma or plasmacytoma.
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.
","2002" "20021013","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used for histology ""tubular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma]. According to histology rule #2 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumor are present.
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.
","2002" "20021012","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How do you code stage and EOD for an extranodal lymphoma with bilateral involvement of a paired site? See discussion.
","For example, we frequently see cases of lymphoma occurring in bilateral orbits, or both lungs. This issue was discussed at a 1991 SEER meeting with the tentative answer being that lymphoma involving both organs of a paired site will be coded as stage I (e.g., both eyes or both lungs), as this would be contiguous disease. However, an extranodal lymphoma involving tissue of both limbs (e.g., soft tissue of both arms) will be coded as stage IV because this represents wide areas of involvement that have no connection.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Bilateral involvement of an extralymphatic paired organ is coded as involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site for lymphomas. The EOD extension code would be at least 11 (Stage IE). Staging lymphomas of any site depends on whether one or more lymph node regions and/or extralymphatic organs are involved, and whether sites on one or both sides of the diaphragm are involved.
","2002" "20021011","Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Primary Site: How would you code these fields for a case in which an infant presents with a skin rash, enlarged spleen, palpable abdominal mass, inconclusive bone marrow biopsy and a skin biopsy that was positive for ""Langerhans cell histiocytosis""? See discussion.","The pathologist states, ""I would consider this case a malignancy, although it does not always behave as such. Lesions in babies often act in a malignant manner.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the pathologist states this is a malignancy, the case is reportable. Code the Histology field to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS] and change the Behavior Code from 1 to 3. Code the Primary Site field to skin [C44._].
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.
","2002" "20021010","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with ""areas of"" papillary architecture and ""foci of"" squamous differentiation? Even though ""areas of"" and ""foci"" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms ""areas of"" and ""foci of"" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.
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.
","2002" "20021008","Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Bladder: What codes are used to represent these fields for a deeply invasive bladder primary treated initially with a TURP (for suspected prostate extension that turns out to be pathologically negative) and a TURB that is subsequently treated with a cystoprostatectomy?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:
1. Surgery of Primary Site field to 60 [Radical cystectomy (male only)] because the cystoprostatectomy was the most extensive (definitive) surgery performed to the primary site.
2. Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites] based on the TURP.
","2002" "20021007","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS].","2002" "20021006","EOD-Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: If a solitary plasmacytoma originates in the right tonsil and extends to the left tonsil, vallecula and hypopharynx, is extension still coded to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only] for all cases of solitary plasmacytoma.
","2002" "20021005","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for an extranodal lymphoma that has more than one tumor in the primary site OR has intraluminal extension from the primary site to an adjacent organ? See discussion.","1. Small lymphocytic lymphoma with 2 tumors in the stomach.
2. Lymphoma involving the cecum and ileum.
3. Lymphoma of the fundus of stomach with extension into the esophagus.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Using the EOD scheme for lymphoma, code the Extension field to 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site; Stage IE] for all 3 of these cases.
For the stomach lymphoma: There are 2 areas of lymphoma, but it is still confined to one site.
For the other 2 lymphomas: Intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the lymphoma never equals extension. The same phrase that was added to code 21, ""Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues"", will be added to code 11 in the Collaborative Stage System. Neither ""mucosal spread to a contiguous organ"" or ""direct extension into a nearby organ"" affect staging. Both are still coded to 11 as long as there are no other sites of lymphoma involvement.
EOD code 80 is poorly written. It does not mean diffuse invovement or multiple tumors in a single organ but rather ""diffuse disease in two or more organs.""
","2002" "20021004","Histology: What code is used to represent the histology for the abbreviation ""ca""? See discussion.","The abbreviation ""ca"" results in inconsistency when coding histology by a group of coders. Many abbreviation guides list both cancer (8000/3) and carcinoma (8010/3) as definitions for ""ca."" Page 261 of the SEER Self Instructional Manual, Book 5 lists carcinoma as the definition for ""ca.""
Example: What histology is used for a case with a clinical diagnosis of ""recently diagnosed uterine ca"" with metastasis to the pelvic lymph nodes?
","For uterine primaries, code the abbreviation ""ca"" to 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS].
When coding death certificate only (DCO) cases, if the site is coded to an unknown primary and no specific histology information is available other than the abbreviation ""ca,"" interpret ca as cancer (8000/3) per NAACCR Procedure Guidelines for Registries, Series V; Resolving Death Clearance Issues, page V-15.
","2002" "20021003","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms ""intramucosal extension,"" ""in situ component extending to,"" or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.
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.
","2002" "20021002","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis""? See discussion.","SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, ""Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. ""Comedocarcinoma"" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. ""Comedo type"" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. ""Comedo necrosis"" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all.""
Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [ductal carcinoma in situ].
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.
","2002" "20020069","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is ""evolving"" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of ""evolving"" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-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.
","2002" "20020066","Chemotherapy: How is treatment with Iressa (Gefitinib) coded?","","Code treatment with Iressa as chemotherapy.
Iressa is an epidermal growth factor inhibitor. While it doesn't kill cells directly, it damages the cell reproduction process. We classify it as a chemotherapy agent.
","2002" "20020063","EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret ""dermal lymphovascular space invasion"" and ""dermal lymphovascular invasion"" for extension? See discussion.","A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state ""dermal lymphovascular invasion"". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion.
","2002" "20020062","Histology (Pre-2007): Can the histology code 8582/3, ""thymoma, mixed type, malignant"" only be used when you have a thymoma with both type A and type B features? See discussion.","Can this same histology be used when you have two type B features in the thymoma specimen? What code is used to represent the histology?
Example 1: Thymoma, spindle cell and epithelial type
Example 2: Thymoma, mixed lymphocytic and epithelioid type
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For example 1, code histology to 8582 [Thymoma, type AB]. This code is only applicable to ""Type AB thymoma [mixed]"" in the WHO classification. Use 8582 only for thymomas with type A and type B features. Spindle cell is a type A feature and epithelial is a type B3 feature.
For example 2, code histology to 8585 [Thymoma, type B3]. Lymphocytic is a B1 feature (8583) and epithelial is a B3 feature (8585). There is no type A component. Code the histology based on ICD-O-3 rule K on page 34.
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.
","2002" "20020060","Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term ""opacity"" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the ""opacity"" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion.","Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a ""4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung."" A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being ""suspicious for carcinoma""?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a ""mass"" or as ""suspicious for cancer,"" the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].
","2002" "20020059","Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding?
","","This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/
Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.
FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.
For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as ""Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II,"" disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term ""Moderately differentiated.""
","2002" "20020058","Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Would one primary be reported when adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp NOS [8210/3] and adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma [8263/3] were simultaneously diagnosed in the sigmoid colon (first 3-digits of the histology are different)?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary. Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].
Count as a single primary and code the more specific term when simultaneous lesions are present and one lesion is an ""NOS"" term and the other is a more specific term. ""Polyp"" is an NOS term. Adenoma is an associated term, but is more specific (Tubulovillous adenoma is more specific than ""polyp"").
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.
","2002" "20020057","Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: What code is used to represent the histology ""radial growth phase: melanoma, superficial spreading type; vertical growth phase: epithelioid type""? See discussion.","Can the ""growth phase"" be used to code histology? If so, would the histology be epithelioid cell melanoma (8771/3)?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8771/3 [epithelioid cell melanoma]. The ""growth phase"" information in this case describes the horizontal spread and the ""invasive"" or vertical growth through the layers of skin.
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.
","2002" "20020056","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is a 1998 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, followed by a 2001 squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder reportable as a second primary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. This case is reportable as a second primary. The rule in the SEER Program Code Manual says that invasive bladder cancers with histology codes 8120-8130 [papillary, transitional] are always coded as a recurrence and are an exception to the multiple primary rule. Squamous cell carcinoma [8070] is not a part of that exception.
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.
","2002" "20020054","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
","Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well?
","For cases diagnosed 2001-2006:
Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second primary.
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.
","2002" "20020053","EOD-Extension--Meninges: How do you code extension for a malignant meningioma that invades into the adjacent brain tissue?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60. Code 60 is defined as a brain tumor that extends into the meninges. It is also the appropriate code to use for a tumor that extends from the meninges to the brain.
","2002" "20020052","EOD-Extension--Lung: How do you code extension for a lung tumor described on bronchoscopy as ""obstructing the RUL and intruding into the right bronchus intermedius. Small tumor nodules distally in midline of anterior trachea wall""?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because the tumor nodules are discontinuous from the primary tumor.
","2002" "20020051","CS Extension (Clinical)/SSF 3 (Pathologic Extension)--Prostate: Upon prostatectomy, the case was determined to be localized. There is no clinical assessment of the tumor prior to prostatectomy. Should clinical extension be coded to 99 [Unknown]? Please see discussion below. See discussion.","We have a prostate case that is clinically inapparent. There is no staging info at all, no biopsy done. Then the patient has a prostatectomy with a single 0.4cm focus of Adenoca gr 3+3.","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, code CS Extension (clinical) as 99 [unknown]. The extension based on the prostatectomy is coded in Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension.
","2002" "20020050","EOD Clinical Extension--Prostate: Can you assign code 15 if there is no TURP and no physical exam? See discussion.
[Code 15 = Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g. for elevated PSA, (T1c)]
","Prostate case: Elevated PSA, Prostate u/s: no abnormal findings, Prostate biopsy: adenocarcinoma. Can this be clinically coded as 15? According to Prostate EOD Coding Guide (6/2001), code 15 requires documentation that the physical exam was negative, but in this case, we have no physical info.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD Clinical Extension field to 30-34 when there is no documentation saying that the physical examination was negative.
","2002" "20020049","EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned ""thickening"" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical ""thickening"" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report.","2002" "20020047","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/Radiation Sequence with Surgery/Date Therapy Initiated: Is the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field used to code date of first therapy and radiation sequence with surgery? See discussion.","Example: There is no primary site surgery and only an aspirate of a lymph node and the date of therapy is based on this procedure.","Yes, the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field is used to code the Date Therapy Initiated field and the Radiation Sequence with Surgery field.","2002" "20020046","Primary Site: How do we code site when endometrioid carcinoma arises in ""endometriosis""?","","Code the Primary Site to where the endometriosis implanted, which may or may not be the endometrium. Endometrioid carcinoma can arise in the ovary, endometrium and other internal genital sites. The site/histology edit for endometrioid and ovary has been removed from the SEER edit set.","2002" "20020044","Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic ""apex""? See discussion.
","Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex.
","SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means ""narrowest part,"" which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland.
","2002" "20020039","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).
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.
","2002" "20020035","First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion.
","If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of ""no disease"" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not ""treated""?
","Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of ""no disease"" and all treatment fields coded to ""no treatment"" is allowable.
","2002" "20020031","Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.
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.
","2002" "20020030","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add ""Imaging studies"" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion.","How do we determine where to add ""imaging studies"" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1) You may add ""Imaging"" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.
2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned.
","2002" "20020024","Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list ""adenocarcinoma in situ"" or ""squamous cell carcinoma in situ."" Are these histologies still reportable?","","For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.
Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.
","2002" "20020020","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When two breast tumors with two different histologies, such as duct and mucinous are diagnosed in the same breast at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
","Our rule is that multiple lesions of different histologic types are separate primaries. However, for separate tumors of duct and lobular, we report as a single primary. Since we now have a combination code for duct and other types of ca, do we report as a single primary or continue to report as separate primaries?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
When there are two breast tumors, one mucinous, the other duct carcinoma, report as two primaries when the pathologist's opinion clearly states that there are separate primaries.
If there is no such information from the pathologist, the two tumors must be separate with clear (negative) margins to be reported as two primaries. Otherwise, report as one primary.
The ICD-O-3 combination codes are not intended to combine tumors of different histologic types.
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.
","2002" "20020019","Reportability: Are the terms ""evolving melanoma in situ"" or ""evolving melanoma"" reportable diagnoses?
","","According to SEER's melanoma expert, these cases are not reportable because there is no standard definition for the term ""evolving"" melanoma.
","2002" "20020018","EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Cervix: What codes are used to represent these fields for a cervix primary when the only information on lymph nodes is a CT of the pelvis showing ""pelvic adenopathy"" (no surgery was done)?","","Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown]. Code the Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 98 [No nodes examined] and the Lymph Nodes Examined to 00 [No nodes examined] because there was no resection of the primary organs. Adenopathy, NOS, per SEER guidelines, is not coded as lymph node involvement","2002" "20020016","Primary Site (Pre-2007)--Prostate/Prostatic Urethra: What code is used to represent primary site for an ""adenocarcinoma with spindle cell differentiation"" of the prostatic urethra?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to C61.9 [prostate] because the histology is adenocarcinoma.
When a malignancy is identified in the prostatic urethra, look at the histology to determine the primary site. If it is a transitional cell carcinoma, code the Primary Site field to C68.0 [urethra] and if it is an adenocarcinoma, code to C61.9 [prostate].
The EOD scheme is ultimately collapsed into the TNM scheme. The TNM system differentiates between adenocarcinoma of the prostate and transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra. Only adenocarcinoma of the prostate is staged by the prostate scheme. Transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra is coded to C68.0 [urethra] and staged with that scheme.
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.
","2002" "20020015","Histology (Pre-2001): For cases diagnosed before 1/1/01, what code is used to represent the histology ""small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2001, code the Histology field to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] for ""small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma"".","2002" "20020014","Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can the WHO grade be used to code differentiation for bladder primaries?","","No, the WHO grade is not used to code differentiation for bladder primaries.","2002" "20020012","MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma""? See discussion.","Is the histology coded to the combination code of 8522/3 (ductal and lobular) or to the invasive component 8520/3 (lobular)?","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assuming ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma are present in a single tumor, code 8520/3 [Infiltrating lobular carcinoma, NOS].
Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, the single tumor invasive and in situ carcinoma module, start and stop at rule H9 and code the invasive histology.
","2002" "20020011","Histology (Pre-2007): What code should be assigned to acinar adenocarcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. According to histology rule #4 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, use a combination code if one exists.
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.
","2002" "20020009","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma that involves the spleen and lymph nodes above the diaphragm (e.g., involvement of only the spleen below the diaphragm and cervical lymph nodes above the diaphragm)?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 32 [30 + involvement of the spleen; III S]. The spleen is counted twice (once as the spleen and a second time as a lymph node region below the diaphragm). As a result, the EOD-Extension field is coded to reflect involvement of lymph node regions on both sides of the diaphragm plus involvement of the spleen. See Note 1 on the EOD scheme that states ""Any lymphatic structure is to be coded the same as a lymph node region.""
","2002" "20020008","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a ""simple mastectomy"" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?","","Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].
","2002" "20020003","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.
The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon.
","2002" "20020002","Date Therapy Initiated: What date should be entered in Date Therapy Initiated when treatment follows a surgical procedure that is not coded under Surgery of Primary Site? See discussion.","If a patient has a surgical procedure that is not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field and then the patient undergoes additional first course of treatment, such as radiation therapy, how should the Date Therapy Initiated field be coded?","In this example, code the Date Therapy Initiated field to the date of the first surgical procedure. If a SEER edit is triggered, please notify us.","2002" "20010168","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features""? See discussion.
","Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should ""sarcomatoid"" be interpreted as sarcoma?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in coding histology.
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.
","2001" "20010167","EOD Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.
","2001" "20010166","Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an ""unknown diagnosis"" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
","","Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
","2001" "20010164","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: If you only have a biopsy and not a resection of the primary site, can you code the size of the prostate nodule demonstrated on digital rectal exam? See discussion.","Example 1: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. TRUS-guided biopsy of left side of prostate shows adenocarcinoma. Right side biopsy is negative. Is size coded to 010 or 999?
Example 2: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. Bone scan was positive for metastatic disease. Is size coded to 010 or 999?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
You need path confirmation that a malignancy exists in the prostate before you can code the size of the nodule seen clinically.
Example 1: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 010 [1 cm], because the nodule in the prostate is confirmed as cancer by needle biopsy.
Example 2: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 999 because there was no pathologic confirmation of malignancy.
","2001" "20010162","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having ""focal"" involvement? See discussion.","Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
","Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term ""focal"" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
","2001" "20010161","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: Radical prostatectomy reveals two distinct tumors. One is ""adenocarcinoma with ductal differentiation"" and the other is ""adenocarcinoma with acinar differentiation."" What code is used to represent the histology and how many primaries does the patient have?","","For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
This is one primary. Code the Histology field to 8255/3 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] based on rule A of the Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses. This is code was added in the ICD-O-3.
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.
","2001" "20010158","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Does capsular invasion (code 32) take priority over apex extension (code 34) on prostate primaries? See discussion.","On prostatectomy, adenocarcinoma involves left apex and also left mid lobe where it focally invades capsule. Do we code extension to 34 - the highest numerical code, or to 32 to capture the capsular invasion? Do codes 33 and 34 represent a subset of code 31, and would code 32 represent greater tumor involvement?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.
Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are ""subsets"" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].
","2001" "20010157","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology of ""invasive ductal carcinoma and in situ ductal carcinoma, cribriform type""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma] unless the combination is ductal and lobular.
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.
","2001" "20010156","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion.","If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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.
","2001" "20010155","Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of ""highly suggestive of early melanoma"", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of ""no residual disease"", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
","Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: ""...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus."" The re-excision pathology report states ""biopsy proven melanoma"" in the ""Clinical History"" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states ""no evidence of melanoma."" The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
","The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
","2001" "20010154","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when there are invasive and in situ components in a tumor, but only the in situ component is graded (e.g., Invasive ductal carcinoma with high grade ductal carcinoma in situ)?","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. The grade is taken from the invasive component only.","2001" "20010148","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Would a lymphoma involving mesenteric and retroperitoneal nodes (both site code C77.2) be coded to extension 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I], based on the fact that while more than one ""chain"" is involved only one ""region"" is involved?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of diaphram]. The AJCC lists mesenteric as a core nodal region, but does not list retroperitoneal lymph nodes as a part of this region, so retroperitoneal is a separate region.
The EOD staging scheme for lymphoma uses lymph node REGIONS as the criteria for assigning the extension code. Use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual as the definitive source for classifying lymph node regions, not the ICD-O-3. If it is a separate LN region per the AJCC, it is coded in the EOD as a separate region.
According to the AJCC curator, the nodal regions are defined in Kaplan's book on Hodgkin disease. Bilateral cervical, or axillary, or hilar, or pelvic, or inguinal nodes count as two regions. Mediastinal and para-aortic lymph nodes count as one region regardless of laterality as they are centrally located. A large mediastinal mass constitutes one region involved regardless of the size.
","2001" "20010145","EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion.","Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20?","The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category.
","2001" "20010144","EOD-Extension--Cervix: How do you code tumor extension described as ""the in situ lesion extends from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina""? See discussion.","Example: Cone biopsy of cervix and vaginal vault both show ca in situ. The op report stated: ""lesion extending from the left lateral portion of the cervix onto the left lateral portion of the vagina."" The pathologist stated it ""appeared to be an in situ lesion extending from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Primary Site to C53.9 [Cervix uteri] and the EOD-Extension filed to 00 [in situ]. In situ is a measurement of invasion. Extension of the cervical in situ carcinoma via the mucosa to the vagina does not affect the EOD extension code.
","2001" "20010143","EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Lung: How do you code these fields for clinically positive lymph nodes when the result of neoadjuvant treatment is that the lymph nodes are pathologically negative? See discussion.","The pt presents with ""mediastinal adenopathy"" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?
Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 2 [Mediastinal, NOS]. Code the EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 00/10. You will not have a problem with the SEER Edits. The EOD field is coded using clinical and pathologic information. All information gathered within four months of the date of diagnosis (in the absence of disease progression) or through completion of surgery(ies) can be used to code EOD. The clinically positive nodes justify the radiation therapy.
","2001" "20010142","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: If a patient presents with two separate lesions on the left cheek (i.e., left lateral cheek and left upper cheek) that both are histologically confirmed to be superficial spreading melanoma on the same day, is this coded as one or two primaries?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary.
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.
","2001" "20010136","Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the ""Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy"" field only relate to the ""Surgery of Primary Site"" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion.","Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]?","For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field ""Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site"" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions.","2001" "20010135","Histology--CLL/SLL: If a tissue diagnosis of ""small lymphocytic lymphoma"" is made six months after an initial blood diagnosis of ""chronic lymphocytic leukemia"" should the histology be updated from 9823/3 to 9670/3?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not change the histology to small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3). The chronic lymphocytic leukemia has advanced/progressed and disseminated into other tissues from the blood during the last six months. If the patient presents with disease in the blood and/or bone marrow only, code to CLL. If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For the case cited, the tissue involvement occurred six months after the initial diagnosis and the histology code is not changed to reflect the progression of disease.
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.
","2001" "20010134","Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was ""testicular cancer""?","","Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used.","2001" "20010132","Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: What code is used to represent the histology ""renal cell carcinoma with granular cell morphology""? Kidney primary with diagnosis of renal cell CA with granular cell morphology. Do we code as granular cell carcinoma? Is the term ""morphology"" synonymous with ""type""? See discussion.","Do we code this type of tumor as a granular cell carcinoma [8580/3]?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8320/3 [granular cell carcinoma]. Renal cell carcinoma is a non-specific term that has several specific cellular subtypes, one of which is granular cell [8320/3].
Note: Do not code to granular cell tumor [9580/3], which is not a histology related to renal cell carcinoma.
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.
","2001" "20010131","Histology (Pre-2007): Can adenocarcinoma in either a villous or tubulovillous polyp or adenoma be coded as histology for sites other than colon or rectum? See discussion.","When adenocarcinoma of the endometrium arises in a villoglandular polyp is the histology coded as 8263/3?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Histology codes 8261 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma] and 8263 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma] are used for non-colorectal sites when the cancer arises in a polyp.
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.
","2001" "20010129","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology ""duct carcinoma, colloid type""? See discussion.","Do we use 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] or 8523/3 [duct carcinoma] mixed with other types of carcinomas?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] per Rule 4. The lesion is colloid type of ductal carcinoma, not ductal carcinoma mixed with colloid carcinoma.
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.
","2001" "20010128","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.","There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.
This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as ""intramucosal extension"" or "" in situ component extending to."" Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
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.
","2001" "20010124","First Course Treatment: What code is used to represent each treatment modality field when there is no indication that a particular modality of treatment was recommended or started?","","Code the individual treatment fields to 0 or 00 [None] when the modality is not addressed in the treatment plan (or when a treatment plan is lacking) and there is no indication that a particular modality of treatment was recommended or started.","2001" "20010123","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Lymph Node fields: How do you code these fields if a pt has multiple lymph nodes surgeries at different times? See discussion.","Example: 1/01/03 Biopsy of 1 sentinel lymph node: positive for metastasis. 1/10/03 Modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection: ductal carcinoma with 8 neg lymph nodes.","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 7. Code EOD Lymph Nodes field to 6. Code EOD Pathologic Number of Reg LN Positive and Examined fields to 01 and 09 respectively.
For the Scope of Reg LN Surgery use the highest applicable code number if more than one Scope of Reg LN Surgery was performed. The EOD lymph node fields are cumulative and count all lymph nodes removed during the diagnostic and first course treatment procedures.
","2001" "20010122","Primary Site/EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--All Sites: What codes are used to represent these fields for an ""extramedullary myeloid tumor (granulocytic sarcoma)"" of the colon with positive or negative lymph nodes?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If only the extramedullary site is involved, such as colon, code the Primary Site field to the site of origin. Granulocytic or myeloid sarcoma is an exception to the rule that all leukemias should be coded to bone marrow as the primary site. Granulocytic sarcoma is a deposit of malignant myeloid cells in a site other than bone marrow (extramedullary). For EOD staging, granulocytic sarcoma [9930/3] is included in the Hematopoietic, Reticuloendothelial, Immunoproliferative and Myeloproliferative Neoplasms scheme and the Extension field is coded to 10 when the lymph nodes are negative, since it (like solitary plasmacytoma) is a localized deposit of tumor.
However, if the regional lymph nodes associated with the extramedullary primary site are involved, code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Systemic disease] because the disease is no longer an isolated deposit of malignant granulocytes (in other words, it is not localized).
The EOD-Lymph Nodes field is coded to 9 regardless of whether or not the lymph nodes are involved because that is the only allowable code for that field.
","2001" "20010119","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD Fields: When a patient has two simultaneously diagnosed primaries, and a regional lymph node dissection intended for one of the primaries removes nodes that are also regional for the other primary, is the information from the lymph node dissection coded for both primaries?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the lymph nodes are negative, the status of nodes that are regional for both sites would be used to code the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery fields for both sites.
If any of the lymph nodes are positive use the histology from the lymph nodes to determine how the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery will be coded. For example: If prostate cancer is an incidental finding when a cystoprostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are done to treat a bladder cancer, and all of the positive lymph nodes reflect the histology of the prostate primary (adenocarcinoma), code the nodes as positive for the prostate primary and negative for the bladder primary.
","2001" "20010118","All Surgical Fields/Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Unknown Primaries: What codes are used to represent these fields for an unknown primary treated with a radical neck dissection followed by radiation therapy?","","For unknown primaries treated with a lymph node dissection and diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:
1) Surgery to Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment].
2) Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: 9 [Unknown or not applicable].
3) Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 1 [Surgery to other site(s) or node(s), NOS; unknown if regional or distant].
4) Radiation Sequence with Surgery: 3 [Radiation after surgery]. Any planned surgical treatment is used to code radiation/surgery sequence (per CoC I&R).
","2001" "20010117","Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.
For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.
","2001" "20010116","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion.","Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, ""a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.
","2001" "20010115","Spanish Surname or Origin: If Asians, Blacks and Whites with non-Spanish surnames are born in a Spanish country, is this field coded to Spanish or non-Spanish? See discussion.","For example, how do we code Miyako Mitsubishi with race listed as Japanese who was born in Peru or Sylvia Shapiro with race listed as White who was born in Argentina?","For both cases, code the Spanish Surname or Origin field to 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic]. Persons with non-Spanish surnames would not be coded as being Spanish solely because they are born in a Spanish country. Do not code Spanish ethnicity based only on birthplace. Place of birth is a separate data item and it can be used in data analysis to identify this particular group of people.","2001" "20010110","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked ""poorly differentiated"" on the TNM form)?","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form.","2001" "20010109","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: If the grade given for the primary site is from a provisional diagnosis and the grade given for a metastatic site is from a final diagnosis, should we follow the SEER rule that says to code the grade as stated in the final diagnosis (e.g., Provisional diagnosis: High grade papillary serous carcinoma of ovary. Final dx: poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in a caval lymph node)?","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 4 [High grade] from the examination of the ovary (primary site). Do not code grade from a metastatic site.","2001" "20010104","Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of ""RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy"" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion.","Note 7 states that ""mediastinal lymphadenopathy"" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL ""mass"" not a ""malignancy"" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.
","2001" "20010103","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Are diagnoses of ""infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma"" and ""duct carcinoma, mucinous type"" both coded to the histology code of 8523/3?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code ""Infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma"" to 8523/3 [Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] according to the instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology in Appendix C of the 2004 SEER manual. Assign code 8523/3 when the diagnosis is duct carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma. Look for ""and"" or ""mixed"" in the diagnosis.
Code the Histology field for a ""ductal carcinoma, mucinous type"" to 8480/3 [Mucinous carcinoma].
The instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology are to code the specific type if the diagnosis is ""Duct carcinoma, _____ type.""
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.
","2001" "20010101","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, ""extending around"" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and ""encasing"" the portahepatis?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms ""extending around"" nor ""encasing"" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.
","2001" "20010100","Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.
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.
","2001" "20010099","EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas ""encompassing"" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.","We do not code the term ""encompasses"" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
","2001" "20010097","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production""? See discussion.","If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: ""The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. ""
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states ""adenoca with abundant mucin production"". Assume that the term ""abundant"" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma ""with mucin production,"" look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as ""abundant"" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
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.
","2001" "20010096","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Should an invasive malignancy following an in situ malignancy by more than two months be a new primary? Why? See discussion.
","Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. These are two primaries.
In situ cancers are not included in SEER incidence rates. Incidence rates must correlate with mortality rates.
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.
","2001" "20010095","EOD-Extension--Lung: Are ""aortico-pulmonary window"", ""paratracheal space"", and ""subcarina"" coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.","Would a lung tumor that extends into the AP window be synonymous with extension into the mediastinum? If so, would this also apply to extension to subcarina, paratracheal space, and other such terms corresponding to areas listed in the mediastinal lymph node field under code 2?","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Extension into the aortico-pulmonary window, would be coded in the EOD-Extension field as 70 [mediastinal extension]. If the tumor extends into the paratracheal space, subcarina, or other areas listed under the code 2 in lymph nodes, code the EOD-Extension field to 70 to capture this type of involvement.
","2001" "20010094","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.
","ACR website:
Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.
Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.
","Updated Answer
Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf
","2001" "20010092","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined: What codes is used to represent these fields when the surgeon states that a ""lymph node dissection"" was done, but no nodes are identified in the pathology report?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 3 [Number of regional lymph nodes removed unknown or not stated; regional lymph nodes removed, NOS] and code the EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined field to 00 [No nodes examined].
The surgery fields reflect the procedures the physician performed. The EOD fields reflect the results of those procedures.
","2001" "20010091","Surgical Procedure of Other Site: Is the excision of a distant lymph node or a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a distant lymph node coded as a Surgical Procedure of Other Site, even though they are performed for diagnostic purposes and not intended as treatment?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 3 [Non-primary surgical procedure to distant lymph nodes] for an excision of a distant lymph node because it is a surgical procedure. However, if only a fine needle aspirate of a distant lymph node is done, code this field to 0 [None].
Fine needle aspirates of regional lymph nodes are the only FNA biopsies to be coded in a surgery field (Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field). In addition, FNA biopsies of regional nodes are also included in the EOD-Number of Positive Regional and Examined Lymph Nodes fields.
","2001" "20010084","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion.","Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.
","2001" "20010075","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus""? See discussion.","Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. ""Focus"" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.
We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of tumor.
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.
","2001" "20010073","EOD-Extension--Bladder: Both papillary transitional cell ca in situ and sessile (flat) transitional cell ca in situ are diagnosed simultaneously in the bladder. We code the higher histology (8130/2). For extension, do we use the code that corresponds to the histology (01), or to the higher extension code (06)?","","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 06 [sessile (flat) (solid) carcinoma in situ], the higher extension code.
","2001" "20010070","EOD Lymph Nodes--Colon/Rectum: How do you code ""mesocolic lymph nodes"" for colorectal primaries?","","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 3 [Mesenteric, NOS]. Mesocolic lymph nodes are coded as mesenteric lymph nodes.
","2001" "20010065","Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent the histology ""mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma"" and ""mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous glandular polyp""? See discussion.","Should histology be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] or 8261/3[adenocarcinoma arising a villous adenoma] or 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villoglandular adenoma]?","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule D in the Coding Complex Morphology Diagnoses: ""Code the morphology with the highest code.""
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.
","2001" "20010055","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either ""keratin positive"" or ""keratin positive for metastasis"" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?","","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only ""keratin positive"" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression ""keratin positive for metastasis""), then code the nodes as involved.
","2001" "20010052","Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries?","","Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034].","2001" "20010050","Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: What treatment code is used to represent the drug ""Gleevec"" being used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. It should be classified as a chemotherapy agent, albeit a unique one. Gleevec seems to work the same way many other chemo drugs do. It disrupts cell division for malignant cells containing the BCR-ABL protein only, rather than for normal and abnormal cells together. When the cells can't divide and create a new generation, they simply die. This meets the definition of an antineoplastic chemotherapy agent.","2001" "20010049","Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to ""unknown or not applicable"" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. .","2001" "20010046","Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].
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.
","2001" "20010044","Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a ""suspicious"" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious ""biopsy"" handled the same way?
","","Cytology reported as ""suspicious"" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious ""biopsies"" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious ""cytologies"" without supporting clinical statements are not.
","2001" "20010043","Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms ""lytic"" or ""lysis"" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition?","","Although the term ""lytic lesion"" is often used to describe bone lesions and ""tumor lysis"" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words.","2001" "20010042","Grade, Differentiation--Bone Marrow: Can we use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which lists myeloma as a B cell neoplasm under non-Hodgkin lymphomas, to code Grade, Differentiation field for myeloma to B-cell (code 6)?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
No. Myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells. Plasma cells are the daughters of B cells. So technically it would be correct to call them B cell, but that is not common usage.
Cell marker (phenotype) should be coded in the Grade, Differentiation field for only leukemias and lymphomas, as classified in the ICD-O-3. In the ICD-O-3, myeloma is listed under Plasma Cell Tumors, not Lymphomas. When a cell marker is coded for a leukemia/lymphoma it should be coded only from pathology and/or cytology reports.
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.
","2001" "20010036","Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology for a single lesion with ""metaplastic carcinoma"" and the majority of tumor has sarcomatoid appearance? Squamous cell carcinoma and high grade intraductal carcinoma are also present. Is the term ""sarcomatoid"" equivalent to sarcoma?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/2001: Code the Histology field to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma]. Sarcomatoid is not coded as sarcoma.
The terms metaplastic carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and intraductal carcinoma are used, but only the metaplastic and squamous cell carcinomas are invasive. Metaplastic, loosely defined, means tissue that is not normal.
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.
","2001" "20010033","Grade, Differentiation--Breast:
1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)?
2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)?
","","1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because ""grade"" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9.
","2001" "20010029","Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can ""Fuhrman nuclear grade"" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.","Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.
If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?
","For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field.","2001" "20010027","Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma, cribriform type""?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8201/3 [cribriform carcinoma]. The word ""type"" is a term that indicates majority of the tumor. The term ""cribriform"" would be a term used to determine the histology code.
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.
","2001" "20010026","MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma, microacinar type""?","","For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assign code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. See the MP/H rules for Other Sites, histology coding rule H10.
","2001" "20010025","Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: What treatment code is used to represent prostate carcinoma treated with ""high intensity focused ultrasound"" (HIFU)?","","For cases diagnosed 1998 and later:
Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 17 [Other method of local tumor destruction]. HIFU uses focused energy to destroy tissue. It is classified as a surgical procedure.
","2001" "20010022","Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion.","The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4.","Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: ""Low grade"" is coded to 2 and ""high grade"" is coded to 4.","2001" "20010019","Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term ""plasma cell dyscrasia"" a synonym for multiple myeloma?
","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-3.
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.
","2001" "20010012","Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: What code is used to represent this field for a breast primary treated with a ""bilateral mastectomy""? See discussion.
","Pt diagnosed with rt breast primary opted to be treated with rt modified radical mastectomy and lt simple mastectomy. Path revealed invasive ductal carcinoma on the rt and ductal carcinoma in situ on the lt. Path reported 14 axillary lymph nodes were found in the mastectomy specimen.
","There are two primaries. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: For the rt breast, code Surgery of Primary Site to 51. The contralateral left breast malignancy is not involved with the right breast primary by either direct extension or metastasis. Codes 42 and 52 are used to capture prophylactic mastectomy of the opposite noncancerous breast. In this case, the opposite breast has cancer so these codes cannot be used. Code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 5 and Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 0.
For the lt breast, code Surgery of Primary Site to 41, Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 0, and Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 0.
","2001" "20010007","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: For skin primaries diagnosed 1998-2002, what is the difference between code 40 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation, NOS] and 50 [Radical excision of a lesion, NOS]?","","Codes 40 and 50 are not in the scheme for 2003 forward. See history for coding cases diagnosed 1998-2002.","2001" "20010006","Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is ""firm"" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.","PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies ""firm"" as ""maybe"" being involved. If a maybe term such as ""firm"" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
","2001" "20010005","Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals ""well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals ""chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma""?","","For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors ""high grade,"" ""low grade,"" or ""intermediate grade"" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.
For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions ""high grade,"" ""low grade,"" and ""intermediate grade"" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as ""well differentiated"", ""moderately differentiated"" and ""poorly differentiated"" for lymphoma histologies.
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.
","2001" "20010003","Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology ""prostatic duct carcinoma""? See discussion.","Should the histology be coded to duct carcinoma [8500/3] or endometrioid carcinoma [8380/3]? Prostatic duct carcinoma is defined as endometrioid carcinoma; however, sometimes the pathology report describes the histology as being only ""prostatic duct carcinoma.""","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If there is no mention of endometrioid carcinoma in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. If ""endometrioid carcinoma"" is mentioned in either the final diagnosis or in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8380/3 [endometrioid carcinoma].
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.
","2001" "20010002","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as ""at least 2 cm""? See discussion.","The expression ""at least 2 cm"" seems to be different from ""greater than 2 cm."" Stating ""at least"" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?","For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule ""code what you know.""
","2001" "20010001","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, ""B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... "" Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM.
","2001" "20000852","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology ""cystadenocarcinoma with multiple foci of high grade anaplastic and undifferentiated sarcoma""? See discussion.","The case was presented at tumor conference. The physicians indicated that the patient would not have the same disease course as a patient with cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary. The physicians advised the use of a mixed histology code. However, there is no appropriate mixed histology code for cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic carcinoma, and sarcoma. It doesn't seem as though these cases should be grouped and analyzed with cases having a single histology of cystadenocarcinoma.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8440/34 [cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic] because a combination code for the specified histologic type does not exist.
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.
","2000" "20000851","Primary Site: What site code is used to classify a femur biopsy with pathologic diagnosis of ""Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET)""? See discussion.","ICD-O-3 lists PNET as being site specific to C71._. The pathology report states ""some authors consider both Ewing sarcoma and PNET to be the same histologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 and 23.""","Code the Primary Site field to C40.2 [femur] based on Rule H in the ICD-O-3 that states, ""Use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not listed in the diagnosis. This topography code should be disregarded if the tumor is known to arise at another site.""","2000" "20000849","Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should you code the primary site for a lymphoma that presents with involvement of an extranodal site and regional lymph nodes? See discussion.","1. Lymphoma involves the spleen and the splenic lymph nodes.
2. MALT Lymphoma involves the stomach and the gastric and iliac lymph nodes.
","1. Code the Primary Site field to C42.2 [spleen].
2. Code the Primary Site field to C16._ [stomach].
When lymphoma presents in an extranodal site and in the regional lymph nodes for that extranodal site, code the Primary Site field to the extranodal site. The typical disease process is that lymphoma can spread from an extranodal organ to its regional lymph nodes. It cannot metastasize from the regional lymph node to the extranodal organ. The exception to this would be if the lymph nodes presented as one large mass that extended into the regional organ.
","2000" "20000848","Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should you code the primary site for a lymphoma that presents in a ""mediastinal mass""?","","Code the Primary Site field to C77.1 [mediastinal lymph nodes].","2000" "20000846","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are ""perivesical nodules"" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code ""perivesical nodules"" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.
","2000" "20000845","Primary Site: What code should be used to represent the site for an ""extraovarian"" papillary serous adenocarcinoma located in the ""rectal muscle sheath""? See discussion.","The location of the tumor in the rectus muscle sheath is unusual and suggests an origin within a preexisting mullerian.","Code the Primary Site field to C49.4 [connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of the abdomen].","2000" "20000844","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Colon: What codes are used to represent these fields when the pathology from a colon cancer resection describes 2/16 positive pericolonic lymph nodes and a ""metastatic nodule in the pericolonic fat""?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 03 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 17. Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
","2000" "20000843","Place of Birth: When there is conflicting information, which record takes precedence in coding this field, the medical record or the death certificate?","","If there is a discrepancy, use the information from the medical record to code the Place of Birth field. The information from the medical record is provided by the patient, the information on the death certificate is provided by others. If the medical record does not contain birth information, use the information from the death certificate.","2000" "20000842","Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Explain the difference between code 30 and code 45.
Code 30 [Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion]
Code 45 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS. Margins MUST be microscopically negative.]
","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code 30 represents a biopsy or excision in which the margins of excision are less than 1 cm or the margins are unknown. Code 45 represents a wide excision in which it is known that the margins of excision are greater than 1 cm.","2000" "20000839","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Does the rule in the 3rd Edition of the SEER Program Code Manual apply to cases diagnosed before 1998 that states if there are two separate carcinomas in the thyroid, one papillary and the other follicular, it is one primary and coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary and follicular carcinoma]? See discussion.
","If the rule applies to cases diagnosed before 1998, does SEER plan to ask that cases diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded?
","The rule applies to tumors diagnosed 1998-2006. The rule is not retroactive. At this time, SEER does not plan to ask that tumors diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded.
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.
","2000" "20000561","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Can a pathological extension code be assigned when a retropubic prostatectomy is done? See discussion.","The TNM manual states, ""Total prostatoseminalvesiculectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are required for pathologic staging.""","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The pathology report from a retropubic prostatectomy should be used to code the Pathologic Extension field. This field is coded using pathology report information from the prostatectomy operation regardless of the surgical approach and regardless of whether or not a pelvic lymph node dissection was performed. This is one area in which TNM rules for pathologic staging and SEER rules for EOD are slightly different.
","2000" "20000556","Surgery of Primary Site--Cervix: How is this field coded for a cervix primary when a biopsy removes the entire tumor? See discussion.","Path from biopsy shows ""severe dysplasia--CIN III"" and the report from an endocervical curettage (ECC) is ""chronic cervicitis""?","For cases diagnosed 1998 and later: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 25 [Dilatation and curettage; endocervical curettage (for in situ only)].","2000" "20000555","EOD-Extension--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with ""spread to the omentum""?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described.
","2000" "20000554","EOD-Extension--Stomach: What code is used to represent this field for a stomach primary described as linitis plastica?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 30 [Localized, NOS], unless more information is known about the extent of tumor involvement. Coding the Histology field to 8142/3 [Linitis plastica] and the Size of Primary Tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more: Linitis plastica] identifies this diagnosis.
In the EOD-Extension field, the depth of invasion is the important characteristic to be coded. The 10 digit EOD corresponds to the AJCC Staging Manual in which the ""T"" is based on level of invasion. While a diagnosis of linitis plastica indicates a worse prognosis, it does not define the extent of infiltration. There is no luminal mass with linitis plastica. Instead, the entire gastric wall is thickened by tumor.
","2000" "20000553","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can tumor size of 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] be used when there is a lung mass seen but the diagnosis is from a positive bronchopulmonary secretion?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor code 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] is used only when there is no visible primary lung tumor and bronchopulmonary secretions are positive for lung malignancy.
Even if the diagnosis was made by cytology of broncho-pulmonary secretions, if there is a visible mass, code the size of the mass if known, code 999 if size is unknown.
","2000" "20000552","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: If the patient has inflammatory carcinoma of the breast, is the tumor size coded as 998 even though we have a tumor size?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more of breast; inflammatory carcinoma] for all inflammatory breast carcinomas.
These cases have a worse prognosis because of the dermal lymphatic invasion. Half of the inflammatory breast carcinomas will have no palpable mass.
","2000" "20000551","Primary Site--Breast: What subsite code should be used for a diagnosis of ""inflammatory carcinoma""?","","Code the Primary Site field to C50.9 [Breast, NOS] for a breast primary presenting with inflammatory cancer unless there is a palpable mass within the breast. If there is a palpable mass, code the primary site to the position of the mass.","2000" "20000549","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded if radiation to the primary site and/or regional lymph nodes is performed prior to surgery?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields per the information in the pathology report(s). Radiation to the primary site would not affect the status of the lymph node involvement. Radiation to the regional lymph node region may or may not affect the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. However, for these fields code the best information available about the status of the lymph nodes which is reflected in the pathology report(s).
","2000" "20000547","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""non-small cell carcinoma, NOS""? See discussion.","Should a non-small cell carcinoma histology be assumed to be a large cell carcinoma [8031/3] or should the histology be coded to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3]?","For tumor diagnosed 2001-2006: Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma].
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.
","2000" "20000546","EOD-Extension--Mycosis Fungoides: Explain the difference between extension codes 25 [% of body surface not stated, no tumors] and 30 [skin involvement, NOS; extent not stated, no tumors. Localized, NOS]?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For mycosis fungoides: Use code 25 when skin involvement is present but only a general location/site is mentioned (i.e., face, legs, torso, arms).
Use code 30 when there is skin involvement but there is no mention of location/site.
","2000" "20000542","EOD-Lymph Nodes/TNM--Breast: Do we code these lymph nodes fields for a breast primary that describes ipsilateral axillary lymph node involvement as ""extending through the lymph node capsule and into perinodal soft tissue/fat"" as ""fixed/matted""?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary regional lymph nodes, NOS], if the size of the metastasis within the lymph node is not known. ""Extension into perinodal soft tissue"" does not imply that the lymph nodes are fixed to one another or to other structures. AJCC stage for lymph nodes is coded to N1 [Metastasis to moveable ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes].
In order to code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 5 [Fixed/matted ipsilateral axillary nodes] which is the equivalent to AJCC equivalent N2, there must be some clinical or pathologic statement of fixation or matting. There can be extension through the capsule without fixation or matting. ""Fixation"" is a clinical term and ""matting"" can be either clinical or pathologic. A pathologist can recognize two or more lymph nodes stuck together by tumor.
","2000" "20000539","CS Extension--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension for prostate primaries diagnosed at autopsy? See discussion.","A patient was not diagnosed prior to autopsy. The autopsy diagnosis states that this is adenocarcinoma of the prostate without capsular invasion.
Should clinical extension be coded to clinically inapparent, NOS (10) and pathologic extension be coded to no prostatectomy done within first course of treatment (97)?
","Code CS Extension (clinical) to 99 [Unknown]. Code SSF 3 according to the amount of tumor found using the information from the autopsy.","2000" "20000535","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: ""case staged as C"" and ""case staged as T3a""? See discussion.","Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a ""C"" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: ""The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent."" Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?
","
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage.
","2000" "20000534","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the ""maybe"" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
","2000" "20000533","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the ""maybe"" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
","The rectal examination states that there is ""asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe"" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. ""Enlarged"" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; ""asymmetrical"" and ""firm, NOS"" are on the ""maybe"" list.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the ""maybe"" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
","2000" "20000532","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion.","Example: 1) Lymph node biopsy: adenocarcinoma. 2) Lymph node dissection: 4/15 regional lymph nodes positive for adenocarcinoma.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.
","2000" "20000530","Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: What code is used to represent the histology and grade for ""WHO-II astrocytoma, grade II"" of the brain when the WHO-II classification is different from the classification systems previously used? See discussion.","According to the WHO-I classification system, this is a moderately anaplastic astrocytoma. According to the Duke criteria, this is an astrocytoma. By Dauma-Dupont criteria, this is a grade 2 astrocytoma.","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 9401/34 [anaplastic astrocytoma].
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.
","2000" "20000529","EOD-Extension--Lung: If LUL mass ""crosses the pleural surface"" into the LLL, do we assume this represents extension to the pleura? See discussion.","9/22/93 Left upper lobe lobectomy: 3 x 3 cm mass in the periphery of the LUL near the LLL. Multiple enlarged nodes around the aortic arch and within the pulmonary fissure.
9/22/93 Pathology: Moderately differentiated Adenoca. The neoplasm does cross the pleural surface into the segment of the lower lobe. Lower margin of resection is free of neoplasm. Six lymph nodes negative for metastatic carcinoma. Tumor staged as T2N0M0 Stage Ib by physician.
Is tumor extension coded 10 [confined to one lung] or 40 [extension to pleura]?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to pleura]. The tumor has penetrated (extended to) the pleura.
","2000" "20000528","Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures--Breast: Is a bone marrow transplant first course of cancer-directed therapy for breast cancer? If yes, are time guidelines relating to the first ""remission"" the same as for those used in leukemia primaries?
","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A bone marrow transplant can be first course of therapy for cases in which there has been no progression of disease between the initial therapy (e.g., surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) and the bone marrow transplant. Code Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures field to 10-12 or 40 (depending on the type of bone marrow transplant performed).
Do not use leukemia treatment time guidelines when coding breast cancer treatment.
","2000" "20000527","Radiation: Is ""consolidated"" radiation therapy coded as part of first course therapy when there is no documentation of ""planned treatment"" and the radiation is done 4 months after the initiation of treatment?
","","Yes, ""consolidation"" treatment is part of a planned treatment regimen. A treatment regimen may consist of the four following phases:
1. Induction (remission induction)
2. CNS preventive therapy
3. Consolidation/intensification
4. Maintenance
","2000" "20000526","EOD-Extension--Lung: Is bilateral pleural effusion coded as 72 [malignant pleural effusion] or 85 [metastasis]? See discussion.","Example:
10/30/98 CXR: Widespread malignancy, hilar, superior mediastinal masses, bilateral pleural effusions, fullness in soft tissue right neck.
11/01/98 CT chest/ABD: Extensive infiltrate mediastinum by radiolucent tumor mass that engulfs esophagus/trachea. Pleural effusion extends so low it apes ascites. Normal ABS/pelvis.
11/01/98 Pathology: FNA right supraclavicular lymph node: metastic oat cell ca. Sputum cytology reported to be negative.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Extension field to 72 [malignant pleural effusion; pleural effusion, NOS].","2000" "20000518","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology ""papillary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid and mucinous subtypes""? See discussion.","Example: Fallopian tube right (salpingectomy): Primary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: Code the Histology field to 8323/3 [adenocarcinoma, mixed cell]. The case is coded using the mixed histology rule A in the Coding Complex Morph Dx's.
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.
","2000" "20000516","Diagnostic Confirmation--Prostate: How do we code this field when there is an elevated PSA, no other work-up and there is a clinical diagnosis of adenocarcinoma?","","Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study] to indicate the diagnosis is based upon an abnormal PSA tumor marker if the physician uses the PSA as a basis for diagnosing prostate cancer.","2000" "20000515","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary/Endometrium: Is endometrioid adenocarcinoma occuring simultaneously in the left ovary and the endometrium one primary or two? See discussion.
","Pathology Final Diagnosis:
Left Ovary: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma squamous differentiation grade 2 (scale of 3)
Uterus: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation, grade II (scale of III). Focal, very superficial invasion to inner third myometrium with extension to lower uterine segment. Endocervix, cervix, right ovary and fallopian tubes negative for tumor.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the case you describe as two primaries. The endometrioid adenocarcinoma can arise in the endometrium without a concomitant ovarian carcinoma.
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.
","2000" "20000514","Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are ""atypical melanocytic hyperplasia"" and ""severe melanotic dysplasia"" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or malignant.
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.
","2000" "20000513","Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology and how many primaries should be coded for a TURB specimen that demonstrates carcinoma in situ, Grade I to II papillary transitional cell carcinoma, and high grade transitional cell carcinoma? See discussion.","Pathology report:
A. Biopsy, bladder neck, @ 6:00: Carcinoma in situ
B. Biopsy, Bladder wall, lateral, left:
1. Papillary carcinoma (Grade I-II)
2. Loose fragments of high-grade transitional carcinoma
C. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 5:00: Carcinoma in situ
D. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 7:00: Cystitis Glandularis
E. Biospsy, Bladder wall, posterior: Papillary carcinoma (Grade I)
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code this case as one primary and code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8130/34 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade].
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.
","2000" "20000512","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Kaposi Sarcoma: What code is used to represent this field for a Kaposi sarcoma with no skin lesions but positive lymph node and bone marrow biopsies?","","Code the EOD-Extension field to 13 [Visceral (e.g., pulmonary, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, other)], because of the positive bone marrow. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 3 [Both clinically enlarged palpable lymph nodes (adenopathy) and pathologically positive lymph nodes], for the pathologically positive node.
Note: Potential revision of the extension scheme will be referred to SEER Medical Advisory Group (SMAG).
","2000" "20000511","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: What codes are used to represent these fields when only a regional lymph node (positive) aspiration is performed?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
With the exception of those sites/histologies that require 99 in these fields, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the Number of Regional Lymph nodes Examined field to 95 [No regional Lymph nodes removed, but aspiration of regional Lymph nodes was performed].
","2000" "20000509","EOD-Extension--Small Intestine: How do we interpret a pathology description of ""extending through serosa and forming masses in the periserosal tissue"" for a jejunum primary?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 55 [Invasion of/through serosa and adjacent connective tissue]. The description states the tumor extended through the serosa into periserosal tissue. The periserosal tissue in this case refers to adjacent connective tissue lying exterior to the intestinal wall and not the (sub)serosal tissue that lies exterior to the muscularis but inferior to the serosa. Analyze each case individually since pathologists are not consistent when using the above terminology.
","2000" "20000508","EOD-Extension--Cervix: Should this field be coded to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] or 12 [microinvasion] when there is only a statement of ""microinvasion"" but no measurements describing the level of involvement given?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [microinvasion] when there are no depth of invasion measurements given.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] when there is a statement of ""minimal STROMAL invasion.""
","2000" "20000502","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes: Can the AJCC TNM/Stage be used to help code these fields when there is limited text information in the medical record that describes the tumor involvement?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes, this staging information can be used to help code the SEER EOD fields but only if a physician does the TNM/Stage at the time of diagnosis and there is limited text information that describes tumor involvement.
","2000" "20000495","EOD Fields--All Sites: Is EOD information limited to what is available exactly two months from the day of diagnosis?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
EOD should include all information available within four months of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression or through completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment, whichever is longer.
Mets known to have developed after EOD was established should be excluded.
","2000" "20000493","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: For prostate cancer, can an elevated PSA be used to code metastasis? See discussion.","5/31/98 PE: 30 gm prostate with nodularity, suspicious for CA.
Final diagnosis: Stage D Ca of prostate with mets, NOS
PTA IVP: Normal collecting system
5/11/98 CXR: NED
PSA 86.3 Suggestive of prostate Ca per MD
5/13/98 TURP and bilat. orchiectomy: Plan was to perform orchiectomy as treatment of choice if biopsy was positive. Appears MD feels that the patient has mets, NOS based on the elevated PSA.
5/13/98 TURP Adenocarcinoma, PD
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, do not code the EOD-Clinical Extension field based on elevated PSA alone. If a recognized practitioner states that there is metastasis, then metastasis should be coded.
In this case, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because it is Stage D. But if you had D1 or D2 staging based on the involvement of lymph nodes, then that involvement would be coded under EOD lymph nodes and not under the clinical extension field.
","2000" "20000491","Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?","","Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.
","2000" "20000487","Primary Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: Would the following Kaposi primaries be examples of cases not coded to skin for primary site? See discussion.","1. KS developed initially as a lesion in the oral cavity and followed by the appearance of skin lesions.
2. KS found in a resected parotid gland with metastasis to the parotid gland lymph node. No skin lesions identified.
3. KS discovered in a biopsied 3 cm axillary lymph node. Clinically, the patient had hepatosplenomegaly, ascites, and extensive mesenteric lymph nodes. (No mention of skin.)
","Code the Primary Site field as follows:
1. C44.9 [Skin, NOS] as the default value when lesions develop simultaneously in skin and non-skin areas.
2. C07.9 [Parotid gland]
3. C44.9 [Skin, NOS] as the default value when there is no mention of lesions in the skin or other primary site.
Edward Klatt states in Practical AIDS Pathology, ""...Visceral Kaposi (involving one or more internal organ sites) is also present in three-fourths of cases, but may not be diagnosed prior to autopsy. Visceral involvement frequently includes the lung, lymph nodes and gastro-intestinal tract.""
","2000" "20000486","EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a groin mass excision containing 4 lymph nodes for a Kaposi sarcoma case that presented with multiple skin lesions?","","Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 99 99 for Kaposi cases that present systemically and for those that present in more than one site (which includes cases with more than one skin subsite involved at diagnosis). There are no ""regional"" lymph nodes for such cases. This represents a majority of currently diagnosed Kaposi cases. However, for localized Kaposi cases, you can count the number of regional lymph nodes positive and examined if the primary site selected has a regional lymph node chain(s) associated with it (e.g., soft palate, hard palate, or a skin subsite).
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the groin mass excision in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed; Non-primary surgical resection to other site(s), unknown if whether the site(s) is regional or distant].
","2000" "20000485","EOD-Extension--Lung: Should the phrase ""some pleural fluid in both posterior gutters"" be interpreted as pleural effusion for lung primaries? See discussion.","CT scan: ""3 cm mass left upper lobe of lung. Some pleural fluid in both posterior gutters. Large matted hilar lymph nodes, left. Some narrowing left upper bronchus by this adenopathy. Squamous cell ca lung with mets to left hilar lymph nodes, most likely possibility."" Would you code extension to 72 [malignant pleural effusion; pleural effusion, NOS]?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 72 [malignant pleural effusion, pleural effusion, NOS]. Pleural effusion is mentioned as being present.
","2000" "20000484","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast/Cervix: When coding tumor size, when do you use 997 for breast cases and 000 versus 999 for breast and other primaries? See discussion.","Example 1: Ductal carcinoma found in axillary lymph nodes. No tumor found in breast on physical exam or by pathological exam of the breast, but physician states that the breast is definitely the primary site.
Example 2: Paget disease for breast carcinoma with no underlying tumor.
Example 3: Inspection of the cervix shows no visible tumor; biopsy of the cervix reveals CIN III or squamous cell carcinoma, either invasive or in situ.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as follows:
Example 1: Code to 000 [No mass, no tumor found, no Paget disease] when a tumor of a stated primary site is not found, but the tumor has metastasized.
Example 2: Code to 997 [Paget disease of nipple with no demonstrable tumor] if there is no underlying tumor and the patient presents with Paget of the breast.
Example 3: Code to 999 [Size not stated] when no size of tumor is given on the pathology report. Do not use 000 in the size field when a tumor is not visible on physical exam or by imaging, but tumor is found microscopically.
","2000" "20000483","EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent this field for a corpus primary (sounding 8 cm or less in length) treated with radiation prior to a hysterectomy that pathologically showed superficial myometrial invasion? Is it possible that the invasion could have been more extensive prior to the radiation treatment?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium, inner half] which represents the extension you know. In this particular case, there was no clinical evidence of extension outside the corpus. As long as the surgery was not performed because of disease progression, use information from the surgery to code EOD extension.
","2000" "20000482","EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): When ""fixed"" is stated for a larynx primary does it specifically have to say that it is the vocal cord that is fixed? Are the terms ""fixed"" and ""immobile"" synonymous? Should these cases be coded to 40 rather than 35? See discussion.
","1. The tumor is fixed, the arytenoid on left side is fixed and the right arytenoid is partially fixed. Palpation of the tumor reveals it to be fixed in the larynx. T3 N0 M0 Stage III.
2. Erythema and swelling of right false cord with bulging and immobility. Left cord moves normally. T3 N0 M0 Stage III.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field for both cases to 40 [Tumor limited to larynx WITH vocal cord fixation]. Code 35 [Impaired vocal cord mobility] implies that mobility is diminished in strength and/or quality but is not rigid. Impaired mobility is a T2 tumor. Because the second case is T3, the physician implies he/she is using the term ""immobility"" to describe complete fixation.
","2000" "20000478","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When a breast cancer is treated with less than a total mastectomy and more than 2 months later a tumor of the same histology is diagnosed in the same breast with no statement of ""recurrence,"" is this a new primary?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Count as 2 primaries when a subsequent malignant breast tumor is diagnosed more than 2 months later unless stated to be a recurrence. For cases diagnosed after 1/1/94, an in situ followed by an invasive breast cancer is counted as two primaries even if stated to be a recurrence.
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.
","2000" "20000476","Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field when a patient has a history of a previous organ removal and has additional surgery/organ removal for a present cancer (e.g., History of a 1984 hysterectomy and in 2003 has ovarian primary treated with BSO)?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 52 [Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy WITH hysterectomy].","2000" "20000474","Date of Diagnosis: If a clinician states his current diagnosis of malignancy is based on a CT scan done at an early date that contained a diagnosis of only ""neoplasm"" or ""worrisome for carcinoma"" should the date of diagnosis be the date of the scan?","","Yes. Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. The physician's clinical impression upon reviewing the earlier scan, is that the malignancy was confirmed by the scan. If there is a medical review of a previous scan that indicates the patient had a malignancy at an earlier date, then the earlier date is the date of diagnosis, i.e., the date is back-dated.","2000" "20000469","Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Lung: How do you code this field for a lung primary that presents with metastasis to the bone and brain in which the oncologist's treatment plan includes only radiation and chemotherapy?","","Code the Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery field to 1 [Cancer-Directed Surgery Not Recommended].","2000" "20000465","Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field when the only grade/differentiation given is ""low grade"", ""intermediate grade"" or ""high grade""?","","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions ""high grade,"" ""low grade,"" and ""intermediate grade"" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.
Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.
","2000" "20000461","Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Cervix: Should ""negative endocervical curettings"" be coded as surgical treatment for carcinoma in situ of the cervix primaries and should the date of the procedure ever be used in coding the Date Therapy Initiated field?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Surgery of Primary Site to 25 [D&C; endocervical curettage (for in situ only)]. If this is the first treatment given, the Date Therapy Initiated is coded to the date of the curettage.","2000" "20000454","First Course Treatment: If the patient receives no treatment at the time of diagnosis (either because it is not recommended or because the patient refused treatment at that time) but treatment is later instituted after disease progression, should this treatment be coded as part of the first course of treatment?
","","The SEER rules changed in 1998 regarding what constitutes First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy.
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: The First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy fields will all be coded to 0 [None] for these types of cases. The documented disease progression would stop the timeframe for inclusion of any treatment to be part of first course of therapy.
","2000" "20000452","Other Therapy: What code is used to represent ""gene"" therapy? See discussion.","The following form of gene therapy has been described as treatment for malignant brain tumors.
Patients undergo surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible. After surgery, the patients are infused with a virus that has been genetically altered so that it is not infectious and so that it contains a gene from the herpes simplex virus. The herpes gene is sensitive to a drug called ganciclovir. Once inside the brain, the genetically altered virus infects any remaining tumor cells. When this occurs, the herpes gene is established inside the cancer cells. After the virus infects the cancer cells, the patients are given ganciclovir. This drug would kill both the virus and the brain tumor cells.
","Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)].","2000" "20000450","Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?","","These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.","2000" "20000449","EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Is ""subcarinal extension"" with no mention of lymph nodes coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.","Should ""subcarinal extension"" with no mention of lymph nodes be assumed to be direct contiguous extension of the primary tumor or does it represent lymph node involvement?
If it is direct extension, should we code it as 70 in the extension field? If not, should we code it as 2 in the lymph node involvement field?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 70 [mediastinum, direct extension].
","2000" "20000447","Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms ""entrapped by tumor"" and ""encased by tumor"" be interpreted when coding these fields?","","Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms ""entrapped"" and ""encased"" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.","2000" "20000440","Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: Can grade IV be implied for brain primaries with the histology of glioblastoma multiforme, even if there is no statement of grade in the path report? See discussion.","Dr. Platz has instructed the Iowa registry to code glioblastoma multiforme to grade IV, even when there is no corroborating statement of grade in the path report. This is also supported in some references.","Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the absence of a stated grade on the pathology report. If a grade is stated, code the stated grade. SEER does not recommend adopting the rule in the Discussion.","2000" "20000438","EOD-Extension/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Kidney/Eye: What codes are used to represent these fields for simultaneous bilateral Wilms tumor or simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 7 [Distant] for both types of tumor. Each kidney and each eye are staged separately in the AJCC, 6th ed., but for SEER we would abstract these diagnoses as one case and code the EOD and stage fields to distant to reflect the involvement of both eyes or both kidneys.
","2000" "20000437","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Should ""bilateral"" inguinal lymph node involvement by lymphoma be two chains for the purpose of coding EOD?
","","Yes. Bilateral inguinal lymph nodes are coded as two chains/regions.
","2000" "20000436","Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology ""adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp""? See discussion.
","Is ""adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp"" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]?
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8261/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma]. In describing colon polyps, papillary and villous are equivalent terms.
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.
","2000" "20000433","Diagnostic Confirmation: Is it appropriate to code this field to ""radiography"" confirmation when a CT scan does not actually contain a diagnosis of malignancy, however, the discharge diagnosis in the medical record of ""probable malignancy"" is likely based on the abnormal CT findings? See discussion.","10/1/02 CT of Chest: 1) Huge (left) suprahilar mass. 2) Moderate volume loss, left lung. Appearance suspicious of LLL collapse. An infiltrate is seen in the aerated upper lobe as well as pleural effusion. 3) Streaky and nodular changes are noted at the right base that may represent possible lymphangetic spread of tumor.
10/23/02 Discharge Dx: Lung mass, probably carcinoma.
","Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 7 [Radiography]. This is appropriate because it was the scan evidence that was used to make the clinical diagnosis.","2000" "20000431","Surgery Fields--Multiple sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the following surgical procedures?
1. Tongue, NOS - Hemiglossectomy with lymph node dissection
2. Choroid - Eye enucleation
3. Vulva, NOS - Vulvectomy with bilateral lymph node dissection
4. Gallbladder - Cholecystectomy
5. Lung - Laminectomy with partial removal of tumor
","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/03 and later:
1. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.
2. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 41.
3. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3.
4. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40.
5. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 4.
","2000" "20000430","Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent histology when the surgeon describes a sessile polyp and the final path diagnosis is stated as: ""Rectal sessile polyp: Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma"" (pathologist does not state that it is ""arising in a sessile polyp"")?","","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8210/3 [adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp]. The structure in which this adenocarcinoma is arising, is a polyp.
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.
","2000" "20000429","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.","Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.
For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)
Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.
If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.
","2000" "20000428","EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How do you distinguish between clinical extension codes of 10, 13, 14, and 20 for cases with a benign prostate per digital rectal exam that appear localized after TURP/prostatectomy? Can the clinical extension code of 10 be used if the term ""microscopic carcinoma"" is noted in the pathology report without also mentioning ""foci"" or ""Stage A"" for clinically inapparent tumors?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
When the prostate feels benign and the cancer is found incidentally at the time of the microscopic exam, code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [number of foci or % of involved tissue not specified]. Code as 13 (less than or equal to 5%) or 14 (greater than 5%) if percentage involved is given in the tissue resected. If the path report states ""solitary focus of carcinoma"" without mentioning the total amount of tissue resected, code extension to 13. If there is more than one focus, code extension to 10. Don't assign a code of 20 unless the tumor is clinically apparent.
","2000" "20000422","Surgery of Primary Site: Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? See discussion.","Many surgeons are doing exploratory surgery with laparoscopy involving a very small incision, but they can examine organs and take biopsies. Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery?","For cases diagnosed 1/1/1998 and later: Exploratory surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic surgeries, are not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.","2000" "20000421","Surgery of Primary Site/Reconstruction-First Course--Breast: If the plan is to ""reconstruct"" the breast 6 months after an ipsilateral modified radical mastectomy, is the time span a problem or should it be coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field because it was planned?","","For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 55 [Modified radical mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast, Implant]. The time span is not a problem as long as the reconstruction was planned as first course, which is indicated by tissue expander insertion at the time of the original surgery.","2000" "20000420","Date of Diagnosis--All Sites: Is it better to estimate the month in the date of diagnosis field using the re-excision pathology report date or code the month to unknown if the only available information is the re-excision date? See discussion.","The only available information is the following pathology report:
On 7/18/00 a wide excision of the primary lesion is done. The report reads, ""Lesion approximately 1 cm. Residual superficial spreading malignant melanoma with deepest penetration 4 mm.""
","Code the Date of Diagnosis field to 07/2000 for this case. Estimate the month of diagnosis whenever possible.
Given the usual delay between the initial excision of the lesion and a wide excision for a melanoma, estimate the month of diagnosis as July.
","2000" "20000419","EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How do you code myometrial involvement described as 1) ""to the level of the middle one-third"" or 2) ""superficial""?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Evaluate each case carefully.
1. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] because the pathology report indicates involvement of the myometrium ""to the level of."" However, if you feel that you cannot make that determination with certainty and you cannot ask a pathologist for clarification, then code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [Myometrium, NOS].
2. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] for cases with ""superficial"" myometrial invasion.
","2000" "20000418","Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
","2000" "20000280","Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.","Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.
According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.
","Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.
The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.
Priority Order for Coding Subsites
Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:
1 Pathology report
2 Operative report
3 Physical examination
4 Mammogram, ultrasound
If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.
","2000" "20000277","Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.","Pathologists and radiologists say the term ""suggestive"" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term ""suspicious"" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term ""highly suggestive"" instead of ""highly suspicious"" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.","We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
","2000" "20000272","Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries?","","Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for ""anaplastic"" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed.","2000" "20000270","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: What code is used to represent this field when the only information is a description of:
1. ""hilar mass""
2. ""mediastinal mass""
3. ""enlarged"" or ""greater than 1 cm"" used to describe any of the lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD Lymph Nodes field?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD-Lymph Nodes fields as follows for the examples given:
1) 9 [Unknown; not stated] for a ""hilar mass""
2) 2 [Mediastinal] for a ""mediastinal mass""
3) 2 [Mediastinal] for ""enlarged"" or ""greater than 1 cm,"" if used to describe any of the named lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field.
","2000" "20000269","Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion.
","Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent.
","For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ.
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.
","2000" "20000268","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: When there are multiple nodules in the prostate, can size of tumor be based on the size of the largest nodule? See discussion.","Rectal exam: Prostate enlarged, nodular and irregular. No masses. Pathology from prostatectomy: Focal nodules measuring up to 1.3 cm in diameter. Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Would tumor size be 013 or 999?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 013 [1.3 cm]. Code the size of a mass or nodule only when there is pathologic confirmation of malignancy. In the case you mention, the nodules were pathologically confirmed as cancer, so you would code the size of the largest nodule. If a nodule/or mass in the prostate is confirmed as cancer by needle biopsy, you would code the size of the mass or nodule.
","2000" "20000265","EOD-Extension: General instructions, page 7, note 3 states: "" Extent of disease information obtained after treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, hormone or immunotherapy has begun may be included."" Because the SEER manual does not mention radiation treatment, can we use information from a lobectomy to code EOD if a patient has neoadjuvant radiation therapy?","","Radiation therapy was inadvertently omitted from the list. Please see SINQ 20031012 answer as to when the surgical information can be used to stage the case.","2000" "20000262","EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate.","2000" "20000261","EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent a non-Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with involvement of an extralymphatic organ and lymph nodes on the opposite side of the diaphragm?","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 31 [30 + localized involvement of an extralymphatic organ or site; Stage III E].","2000" "20000260","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: When the pathology report does not specify dimensions for the invasive component, how is tumor size coded? See discussion.","In some cases the tumor has both invasive and in situ components. The pathologist sometimes does not report the size for the invasive portion of the tumor. In most cases, the invasive portion is described as a percentage of the tumor mass.","From January 1, 1998 and forward: Follow the Revised Breast EOD instructions. If the size of the invasive component is not given, record the size of the entire tumor in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. Assign the appropriate EOD-Extension code for the situation.","2000" "20000259","Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology for a ""malignant invasive gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)""?","","For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006: Malignant GIST is coded 8936/3.
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.
","2000" "20000258","EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of ""long-standing pneumonia,"" is that synonymous with ""pneumonitis"" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
","","No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
","2000" "20000256","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Melanoma: How do you code tumor size for a melanoma diagnosed by a positive lymph node biopsy when the primary site is coded C44.9 because no primary site was identified? See discussion.","Should the size be 000 because no primary was found or 999 for unknown?","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 000 [No mass; no tumor found] when primary site is coded to C449.
","2000" "20000249","EOD-Lymph Nodes--Melanoma: Should we assume that positive lymph nodes are regional if the primary site for a melanoma is not identified (i.e., C449)?
","","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 8 [Lymph Nodes, NOS].
","2000" "20000248","Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?","","If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
","2000" "20000247","EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: If there is residual tumor in the distal urethra on prostatectomy, does that mean there is distal urethral margin involvement? See discussion.","2/98 Prostate bx: Right apex, right mid and right base positive for adenocarcinoma.
6/1/98 Radical retropubic prostatectomy w/ bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Pathology: Residual adenocarcinoma in distal urethra, right lateral sections and posterior lobe. Right apical margin, other margins, seminal vesicles, and 7 pelvic LN negative for malignancy.
","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For the example above, code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 34 [extending to apex] because most of the right side is involved.
The pathology report says all margins are free. The comment on residual tumor in the urethra, meant the first surgery did not completely remove tumor tissue from the urethra, it does not mean that tissue is at the margin.
","2000" "20000244","Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the ""in situ"" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of ""in situ lymphoma""?","","Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of ""in situ"" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.","2000" "20000243","Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: What code is used to represent ""photodynamic therapy"" (PDT) for lung primaries? See Discussion.","PDT is not listed in the Surgery to Primary Site field codes for lung.","For cases diagnosed 2003 and later, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 19 [Local destruction or excision, NOS] for lung primaries. Photodynamic therapy is a surgical procedure that results in the local destruction of tumor.","2000" "20000242","EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Should the size of tumor be recorded as 001 (focus) or the actual size when both are stated? See Discussion.","The pathology report from a TURP identifies a 3-mm focus of adenocarcinoma.","For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 003 [3 mm]. The rule that says to code a focus or foci of tumor as 001 was developed for use when no tumor size is given.","2000"