CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion.
The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.
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.Code 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.
Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are schwannomas of the spinal cord reportable when they are intradural? See Discussion.
The CNS guidelines basically indicate that schwannomas must all come from peripheral nerves and thus are not reportable when they are on the spinal cord. However, the COC Inquiry 18174 & 18068 states that schwannomas occasionally will develop inside the dura (intradural) on the spinal cord and would be reportable.
According to an expert consultant, schwannomas must be derived from Schwann cells which are not a part of the CNS. All schwannomas come from peripheral nerves. Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.
CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.
Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.
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.Code CS Tumor Size as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.
Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.
MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.
Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.
Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.
Cell indicator--Lymphoma: If the primary site for a lymphoma is stated to be the lymph nodes but there is no biopsy of a lymph node, can the immunophenotype designation for a lymphoma be coded based on a bone marrow or liver biopsy indicating "diffuse large B-cell lymphoma"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
The cell indicator or immunophenotype designation for lymphomas may be coded from pathology reports on tissue from bone marrow or liver when there is no tissue from the primary site. Code information on cell type from any available source.
See the Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual, Coding Guidelines for Lymphomas, pages C-1055 to C-1056 for more information about coding this field for lymphomas.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.
Radiation Therapy--Prostate: Is the regional treatment modality XRT best coded to 50 (brachytherapy, NOS), 53 (LDR) or 54 (HDR) when the documentation indicates only "I-125 seeds" to the prostate?
Assign code 53 [Brachytherapy, interstitial, LDR] for seeds to the prostate. Seeds are always low dose because they are left in place and the radioactivity decays over time.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when each of multiple breast "re-excisions" performed more than two months apart in 2006 demonstrate intraductal carcinoma and there is no mention of "recurrence"? See Discussion.
Right Breast
06/27/2002 exc bx, DCIS. Margins involved.
09/24/2002 re-exc, several foci of intraductal ca. Margins involved.
10/15/2002 re-exc, microfocus of DCIS
Radiation treatment started 11/18/2002.
Is this 1, possibly 2, or maybe 3 breast primaries because of the 2 month rule and no statement of "recurrence"? Based on SINQ #20000478, this would be at least 2, but possible 3 primaries. Based on SINQ #20021143, this would be 1 primary if the case were diagnosed from 1998-2003. The excisions appear to represent wider excisions of the same tumor.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.
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.
MP/H rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a path diagnosis of "pleomorphic carcinoma with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell and spindle components"? Please see discussion.
Path diagnosis of lung tumor is pleomorphic carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma, squamous, clear cell, and spindle cell components. Path comment states: "While the majority of tumor displays usual adenocarcinoma-type features, elsewhere the tumor shows varying differentiation, including squamous, clear cell and spindle cell differentiation. Therefore the tumor is best categorized as pleomorphic carcinoma."
This tumor is best described by a non-specific histology. However, the MP/H rules guide the abstractor to identify a more specific histology. If we work through the lung rules, would we end up using rule H7 and code the histology with the numerically highest ICD-O-3 code?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8022 [pleomorphic carcinoma] based on the pathologist's assessment and rule H3. He/she reviewed all of the histologic components and rendered a final diagnosis of pleomorphic carcinoma.
"Components" is not a term indicative of a more specific histology. See note under rule H5.
An official website of the United States government
Home