Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?
If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.
CS Extension--Bladder: How would the following statements be coded for bladder extension -- Code 03 [inferred description of non-invasion] vs code 15 [invasive confined to subepithelial connective tissue]. See Discussion.
1) no smooth muscle invasion
2) no muscle invasion
3) without muscle invasion
4) no invasion of muscularis propria
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.
For cases diagnosed in 2004 and later code CS extension:
Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion.
CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.
If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD?
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided:
The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes].
Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS].
Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs.
A physician description of "bulky disease" would not change the EOD for this case.
Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia, grade 2 reportable? See Discussion.
Path report reads: Lobular neoplasia, grade 2.
According to the AFIP nomenclature for DCIS (taken from the WHO terminology), this would be the equivalent of LCIS. But nowhere can I find this specifically applies to lobular in the same way that ductal neoplasia is treated.
According to the editors of ICD-O-3, lobular neoplasia grade 2 is not equivalent to LCIS. It is not a reportable term. Lobular neoplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia are equivalent terms having a three grade system. Only LN/LIN grade 3 would be reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is this one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual.
Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077].
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.
Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.
4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.
Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?
The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement.
Reporting Source: Is an ER patient who is diagnosed on peripheral smear with an acute leukemia coded as an outpatient if the patient died while in the process of being admitted for treatment or is the patient coded as a death certificate case?
Code reporting source as 1 [Hospital Inpatient/Outpatient or Clinic] for the case above. This case will be abstracted using information from the outpatient/ER record (and the death certificate).
Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.
12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.
Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.
Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Is the histology coded as adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is adenocarcinoma but the colonoscopy report associated with the path states that the surgeon performed a polypectomy? See Discussion.
Histology: 3/04 Colonoscopy with polypectomy of a sessile appearing polyp. Path report: Final Dx: Adenocarcinoma; Micro: Adenocarcinoma apparently arising from the mucosa...noted to invade the muscularis mucosa into the submucosa.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007
Code this case to adenocarcinoma [8140]. The best source for histology is the final diagnosis on the path report from the procedure that removed the most tumor tissue. When there is a conflict, the path diagnosis has higher priority than the colonoscopy diagnosis for coding histology.
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.
Primary Site/Histology--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Soft tissue and skeletal muscle, left thigh--Large B cell lymphoma with polyclonal and mature t-cells, involving the soft tissue"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Site: C492 [Soft tissue thigh]
Histology: 9680/36 [T-cell rich large B-cell lymphoma]
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home