Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20000535 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: "case staged as C" and "case staged as T3a"? See discussion. | Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?
|
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage. |
2000 |
|
|
20041018 | Grade, Differentiation: Can grade be assigned based on a thin prep if there is no grade in the other pathology reports? See Discussion. | Example:
Vag & Cervical Thin-Prep: Adenocarcinoma, endometrial, high grade.
Resected Uterus and Left Adnexa: Endometrial papillary serous carcinoma arising in an endometrial polyp. |
When it is the only source specifying the grade, code grade from the thin prep. | 2004 |
|
|
20200060 | First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion. |
Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease? |
Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items. |
2020 |
|
|
20240048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Breast: What is histology code of a breast tumor with ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type? See Discussion. |
Example: 12/2023 Breast lumpectomy final diagnosis is Invasive ductal carcinoma, lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma type. This is a single tumor with no in situ carcinoma present. Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma is not listed as a subtype/variant or synonym for breast carcinoma in the Solid Tumor Rules histology tables. |
Lymphoepithelial carcinoma is a subtype of SCC usually seen in skin or H&N sites and often associated with EBV. CPC SME review determined 8082/3 invalid for breast but did not recommend a substitute code. There were only 45 cases coded 8082 2001 to 2019. For this case, it's possible the lesion originated in the breast skin and progressed to breast tissue. SCC is a subtype of metaplastic breast carcinoma so one could argue it code be coded either 8575 or 8070. For this case, we recommend assigning 8500/3. Use text fields to record the details. |
2024 |
|
|
20000526 | EOD-Extension--Lung: Is bilateral pleural effusion coded as 72 [malignant pleural effusion] or 85 [metastasis]? See discussion. | Example: 10/30/98 CXR: Widespread malignancy, hilar, superior mediastinal masses, bilateral pleural effusions, fullness in soft tissue right neck.
11/01/98 CT chest/ABD: Extensive infiltrate mediastinum by radiolucent tumor mass that engulfs esophagus/trachea. Pleural effusion extends so low it apes ascites. Normal ABS/pelvis.
11/01/98 Pathology: FNA right supraclavicular lymph node: metastic oat cell ca. Sputum cytology reported to be negative. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Extension field to 72 [malignant pleural effusion; pleural effusion, NOS]. | 2000 |
|
|
20220036 | Solid Tumors Rules/Histology--Head and Neck: How is histology coded for head and neck primaries when a tumor is diagnosed as an invasive squamous cell carcinoma with multiple subtypes? See Discussion. |
Example Case 1: 2022 mobile tongue tumor biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type. Example Case 2: 2022 base of tongue mass biopsy shows squamous cell carcinoma, basaloid non-keratinizing type, p16 positive. Table 5, Note 2 (Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions) instructs us to code non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma which is p16 positive to 8085 (Squamous cell carcinoma HPV-positive), ignoring the non-keratinizing subtype. Does p16 or HPV positivity also take priority over multiple subtypes (basaloid non-keratinizing type)? |
Assign 8083/3, basaloid squamous cell carcinoma (BSCC), in both examples. It is more important to capture the variant than to code 8085 or 8086. WHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumors, 5th ed., states that BSCC is a distinctive form of SCC, characterized by prominent basaloid morphology, squamous differentiation, and aggressive behavior. Some primary sites capture p16 status as a Site Specific Data Item; you may record the p16 results when that is the case. |
2022 |
|
|
20051075 | 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20051063 | Primary Site/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Lung: How are these fields coded when a chest CT for lung cancer documents multiple masses in different lobes of the lung? See Discussion. | Example Chest CT: "Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease." The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.
Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL? |
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.Based on the information provided: Code primary site C349 [Lung]. Code laterality 1 [Right]. Code CS Tumor Size 999 [Unknown]. Code CS Extension 65 [Separate tumor nodules, same lobe]. Code CS Mets at Dx 39 [Separate tumor nodule in contralateral lung]. |
2005 |
|
|
20051074 | 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20240025 | Update to the current manual/Reportability--Esophagus: Is high grade dysplasia of the esophagus reportable? The 2024 Seer Program Manual, page 21, has an example that states it is not reportable. See Discussion. |
Example 4: Esophageal biopsy with diagnosis of “focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ.” Diagnosis on partial esophagectomy specimen “with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified.” Do not accession the case. The esophagectomy proved that the suspicious biopsy result was false. Appendix E2 #32 of the SEER Manual states high grade dysplasia in site other than stomach, small intestines, and esophageal primary sites are not reportable. Does this mean high grade dysplasia is reportable for esophagus primaries? |
High grade dysplasia of the esophagus is reportable. The example will be corrected in the next edition of the SEER manual. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
