| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051138 | Histology/Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndrome synonymous with "therapy related" myelodysplastic syndrome? If so, would "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndome be SEER reportable and coded with the histology 9987/3? | Page 44 of the "Abstracting & Coding Guide for the Hematopoiectic Diseases" lists this histology & behavior with the proper EOD code to use but yet on page 36 it states "Do not accession the following diagnoses coded to 285.0 and lists secondary SA as well as drug-induced SA. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
There is considerable difference between therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and drug-induced sideroblastic anemia (SA).
Therapy-related MDS is the result of irreversible damage to the bone marrow caused by certain kinds of myelotoxic drugs used to treat cancer. Examples are Cytoxan and Etoposide. There is usually a 10+ year delay between the first primary and its treatment and the therapy-related MDS. Therapy-related MDS is not reversible and is reportable as a malignancy. Because the drugs were almost always given to treat a malignancy, therapy-related MDS is almost always a second primary.
Drug-induced SA is not reportable as a malignancy. Drug-induced SA is the result of short term effects of certain drugs on the bone marrow. Drug-induced SA is reversible, as the marrow recovers once the drugs are out of the system.
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. |
2005 |
|
|
20051122 | CS Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How is this field coded when no scan, scope or surgical evaluation of regional lymph nodes is performed for a case with localized disease in the primary site? See Discussion. | Prior to initiation of collaborative stage, SEER prostate guidelines instructed us to code lymph node involvement as negative when clinical or pathologic extension was coded 10-34 and there was no lymph node information. Is this guideline still in effect, or do we follow the collaborative stage rules which require lymph node information or, in absence of node info, usual treatment for localized disease? | 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 prostate and other "inaccessible sites" with localized disease, code the regional lymph nodes as clinically negative when not mentioned on imaging or exploratory surgery. |
2005 |
|
|
20051001 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: How is histology coded for the tumor(s) that exist if a left upper lobe of lung resection final diagnosis states the patient has a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and the path indicates there are "multiple carcinoid tumorlets"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Histology is coded 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma]. This is one reportable tumor of the left lung. According to our pathologist consultant, the tumorlets are collections of cells which appear to be of neuroendocrine origin, but are not malignant.
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. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051002 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: How are these fields coded for a tumor stated to have only in situ disease in the breast with bone metastasis identified on scan? See Discussion. | 4/20/04 Quadrantectomy: "Tumor involves a significant portion of the biopsy and is estimated at 10 cm in greatest dimension." The only other mention of size is from imaging studies which is 3.5 cm. The histology is "high grade ductal carcinoma with comedo necrosis. No invasive carcinoma identified." Bone scan on 4/20/04 shows "widespread metastatic disease to bone." By rule the behavior code for this case is changed to malignant. | 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 tumor size as 100 [10 cm]. Size from pathology or operative report is preferred over size from imaging.
Code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and proportions of in situ and invasive not known.]
There is invasive tumor present (as proven by the bone metastasis), but the size and proportion of the invasive component is unknown.
Please note: Extension must be coded at least to 10 [Confined to the breast tissue and fat including nipple and areola; Localized, NOS] in this case. Do not assign extension code 00 [in situ]. |
2005 |
|
|
20051103 | CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion. | For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present. Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression. Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression. |
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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above. According to our pathologist consultant: Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma. The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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. |
2005 |
|
|
20051124 | CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Are the EOD guidelines developed for coding apex involvement still in effect for determining the code for apical involvement in SSF 4? See Discussion. | How do the old prostate codes 31, 33, and 34 correspond to the new SSF 4 field? Because "arising in" or "extending into" apex is rarely, if ever, stated, previous SEER guidelines instructed us to use code 33 for "apex only" involvement, and code 34 for "apex and any other area of prostate". Code 31 [into/arising, NOS] was to be avoided. | 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.No, the EOD guidelines for coding apex involvement are not in effect for coding SSF4. The codes for CS site specific factor 4 include code 2 [into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS]. When it cannot be determined if apical involvement is arising in, or extending to, the apex, use code 2. |
2005 |
|
|
20051012 | Reportability: Are malignant tumors of genital skin reportable? On page 1 of the 2004 SEER Manual, Reportable Diagnoses, 1.b.i. Exceptions: malignant and invasive histologies not required by SEER - Skin. There is no longer a note that states that lesions ARE reportable for skin of the genital sites. Has SEER discontinued the collection of malignant skin tumors of the genital sites OR is the manual in error? | The histologies listed in the exception on page 1 are NOT reportable when the topography code is C440-C449. The manual specifically lists the topography codes in 1.b.1. Diagnoses with the listed histologies ARE reportable when the topography code is NOT C440-C449. Genital skin sites are not coded C440-C449 so a note is not needed. | 2005 | |
|
|
20051107 | Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL? | Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma. Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051008 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is a "noninvasive papillary carcinoma, solid type, of the breast" coded to 8503/2 [noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8230/2 [Intraductal carcinoma, solid type]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma]. "Solid" is one of four subtypes of intraductal papillary carcinoma. The other subtypes are cribriform, micropapillary and spindle cell. ICD-O-3 does not provide codes for each intraductal papillary subtype, so code to intraductal papillary carcinoma.
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. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051061 | CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded when there is no description of a primary lung tumor, lymph node biopsies are negative, but biopsy of a "level 7 mass" is positive for squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. | Example: Chest CT: Enlarging subcarinal mass, 3.4 cm, is most likely malignant adenopathy or perhaps primary tumor. The clinician subsequently described a patient history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. He stated that a PET scan revealed multifocal thoracic disease consistent with stage 3B carcinoma. This was followed by mediastinoscopy with lymph node biopsies (all negative) but the biopsies of "level 7 mass and subcarinal level 7 mass" showed squamous cell carcinoma. | 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.If this case is determined to be a lung primary, code the CS fields: CS Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown] CS Extension: 99 [Primary tumor cannot be assessed] CS Lymph Nodes: 20 [Subcarinal lymph node involvement] based on positive level 7 biopsy, history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and subcarinal "adenopathy" per CT. |
2005 |
Home
