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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home