Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
An official website of the United States government
