Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031039 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description. |
CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]? |
Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor. Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging. |
2003 |
|
|
20031024 | Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion. | Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved? | Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under "Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery." It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved. |
2003 |
|
|
20031048 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031054 | Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma? | Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record. In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031128 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "PD infiltrating duct ca with focal sarcomatoid pleomorphic features?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8500/33 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. "Features" is a term from the list indicating a majority of the tumor, however; in this case "features" is modified by "focal" which does not indicate a majority of the 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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031059 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Description. | A breast cancer patient had a FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, the number of Regional Nodes Positive and Examined include all nodes examined by the pathologist, unless there is disease progression. In other words, these fields are cumulative. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 97 for number positive and 95 for number examined. 1 & 2. Assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Case example: Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07. | 2003 |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20031066 | Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of "infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: "Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else."
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. |
2003 |
An official website of the United States government
