2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Colon/Bones: Is the term "pleomorphic" used to code tumor grade to 3 for selected primaries?
Delete the row containing the word "pleomorphic" from the tables on pages 93, C-219 and C-411. This correction will be included in the next set of replacement pages for the 2004 SEER manual.
Primary Site--Bladder: What subsite is used for fundus of the bladder?
As of November 2005, Code fundus of bladder to C678 [overlapping lesion of bladder]. Opinions vary regarding the definition of bladder "fundus." However, according to our pathologist consultant, fundus includes posterior, anterior and lateral walls and dome. Fundus does not include the trigone.
A correction to page C-595 of the 2004 SEER manual will be included in the next errata.
Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion.
CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension.
Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable?
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable.
The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer.
Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If the surgical margins are greater than 1 cm for length and width but less than 1 cm for depth, do we code surgery in the 30-33 range?
Yes, assign a surgery code from the 30-33 range when any margin is less than 1 cm. Since tumor thickness is an important prognostic factor for cutaneous melanoma, the deep margin is of particular importance.
First Course Treatment--Unknown & ill-defined site: We have a case with an unknown primary site and the patient had chemoembolization into the hepatic artery. We don't know how to code this treatment. See Discussion.
We were told to code as surgery (10) and chemo (01). However an unknown primary automatically gets a (98) surgery code & the chemo is coded (01) but we can't code as systemic therapy. This is an edit. Chemo coded but no date of systemic therapy.
Effective for cases coded prior to the change in policy made on January 9, 2008, code chemoembolization of a metastatic site as 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed] in Surgical Procedure of Other Site.
Surgery of Primary Site code 98 is assigned to all cases with an unknown primary.
In the case of a liver primary, it would be coded 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS] in Surgical Procedure of Primary Site.
Chemotherapy--Breast: In the absence of more specific information, is the insertion of a port-a-cath one month after mastectomy enough documentation to code chemotherapy to 88 [Recommended]?
Assign chemotherapy code 88 [Chemotherapy was recommended, but it is unknown if it was administered]. Be sure to confirm whether or not treatment was administered and update this code accordingly.
CS Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when path describes dermal lymphatic invasion of the nipple? See Discussion.
Example
Multicentric infiltrating lobular carcinoma of left breast treated with MRM. Microscopic summary: Blood/lymphatic Vessel Invasion: present. Path final diagnosis: Angiolymphatic invasion present, including dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple. Micro: There is angiolymphatic invasion, including dermal capillary invasion identified in sections of the nipple.
The path report describes multiple breast tumors, none of which is located adjacent to the nipple.
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Assign CS Extension code 20 [Invasion of subcutaneous tissue...] based on the final diagnosis on the path report. There is "dermal lymphatic invasion in nipple." In this case, the stage will be determined by the tumor size.
CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion.
Example
Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.
Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.The description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case.
When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a "tumor nodule," rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field.
Reportability/Behavior--Colon: Is a final diagnosis of "mucosal carcinoid" of the colon reportable with a behavior code 2 [in situ] or 3 [invasive] if the microscopic description states that a "malignancy is not appreciated"? See Discussion.
2002 carcinoid case. Path final diagnosis: sigmoid colon polyp, bx-- sm mucosal carcinoid (1.5mm) w/crush artifact in a colonic polyp showing assoc inflammatory and hyperplastic changes. Micro: due to prominent crush artifact, histologic detail is compromised; however, significant atypia or malignancy is not appreciated.
Our state registry requests that this case be abstracted using the histology code 8240/3 because it is a mucosal carcinoid.
AJCC states TIS as being confined w/i basement membrane w/no extension through muscularis mucosae into submucosa. SEER-EOD codes as invasive: mucosa, lamina propria and muscularis mucosae. Our pathologist goes along with AJCC while we are having to code with SEER rules.
1) Assign /3 to mucosal carcinoid, unless stated to be in situ in the final diagnosis. ICD-O-3 is the reference for assigning the behavior code, not AJCC, EOD or CS.
2) The ICD-O-3 code for carcinoid of the sigmoid colon is C187 8240/3. This is reportable to SEER based on the final diagnosis above. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home