Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description.
Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.
Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.
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.
Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].
According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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.
EOD-Extension--Lung: For a left upper lobe lung tumor that extends across the fissure into the left lower lobe, should this field be coded to 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] or 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign EOD extension code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung]. EOD extension code 10 applies to a single tumor within one lung, even one that crosses over a fissure into another lobe. EOD extension code 10 is not correct if the tumor extends to the pleura, or if there is atelectasis, obstructive pneumonitis or malignant pleural effusion. Code 77 is incorrect because that is a separate tumor nodule in a different lobe.
Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.
Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.
Updated answer July 2024
No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.
EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.
Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description.
Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size."
Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the anatomical distinction among tonsillar fossa, tonsillar pillar, and tonsil NOS?
Operative findings describe a right tonsil three times the size of the left tonsil. Tonsil is dissected from the tonsillar fossa. There appeared to be no involvement of tumor below the tonsillar capsule.
The tonsil lies in an indentation called the tonsillar fossa. The tonsillar fossa is bordered on either side by the tonsillar pillars. The tonsillar pillars are part of the supporting structure of the throat opening.
Code C09.9 [Tonsil NOS] as the primary site for the case above.
Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description.
An FNA of pancreas is stated as "highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma." The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis.
Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].
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.
Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.
For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.
In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].
An official website of the United States government
Home