Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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. |
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 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit  cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
