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