Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded when the final diagnosis for excisional biopsy of two cervical lymph nodes shows classical Hodgkin lymphoma, histologic subtype cannot be determined, but the COMMENT section of the report indicates there are features of both lymphocyte rich and nodular sclerosis subtypes?
Per Rule PH28, code histology to 9650/3 [Classical Hodgkin lymphoma]. This rule states to code the non-specific (NOS) histology when the diagnosis is one non-specific (NOS) histology and two or more specific histologies.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
Histology--Leukemia: How is "T-Cell prolymphocytic leukemia, cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant" coded when the pathology report COMMENT states: The cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant accounts for about 5% of cases of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
9834/3 [Prolymphocytic leukemia, T-cell type]. According to the WHO Classification of Haematopeietic and Lymphoid Tissue Tumours, cerebriform or Sezary cell-like is a variant form of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia.
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.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Breast: Are the codes on page 94 of the SEER manual's Breast Grading Conversion Table requiring conversion of nuclear grades 1/3 and 1/2 to code 1, 2/3 to code 2, and 2/2 and 3/3 to code 3 correct or are the codes on page C-473 in the Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade) for breast correct that requires conversion of the same examples to codes 2, 3, and 4 respectively?
On page C-473: Delete the section titled "Three-Grade System (Nuclear Grade)" and delete the table. Use the tables on pages 94 and C-472 to code grade for breast cancer. This correction will be made in the next errata.
Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields?
Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.
EOD-Extension--Colon: How is this field coded for an appendical primary when the appendix has ruptured and intrapentoneal fluid is positive?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD extension as 85 [Metastasis]. Positive intraperitoneal fluid is equivalent to distant metastasis (implantation) for colon, including appendix, primaries.
Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries?
Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for "anaplastic" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed.
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.
Date of Diagnosis: If a clinician states his current diagnosis of malignancy is based on a CT scan done at an early date that contained a diagnosis of only "neoplasm" or "worrisome for carcinoma" should the date of diagnosis be the date of the scan?
Yes. Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. The physician's clinical impression upon reviewing the earlier scan, is that the malignancy was confirmed by the scan. If there is a medical review of a previous scan that indicates the patient had a malignancy at an earlier date, then the earlier date is the date of diagnosis, i.e., the date is back-dated.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used for histology "tubular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma]. According to histology rule #2 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumor are present.
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