System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 04/26/2024 14:40 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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