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.
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.
Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of "other treatment"? See Description.
Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions.
SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain.
Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy.
EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description.
Examples:
1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.
2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement.
Primary site--Melanoma: Should melanoma of the nipple be coded to C50.0 [Nipple] or C44.5 [Skin of the trunk]?
Code to C44.5 [skin of trunk]. External melanoma is an epidermal malignancy, beginning in melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. C50.0 excludes skin of breast.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive "neck nodes" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the "neck" are distant, rather than regional, for lung.
Primary site--Unknown & ill-defined site/Kidney: How should this field be coded when humeral metastases are compatible with renal cell carcinoma pathologically, no kidney lesion is found clinically and the physician's signout diagnosis is "no primary found, as of now unknown"? See Description.
Path states "biopsy of humerus, mets sarcomatoid carcinoma consistent with renal cell carcinoma." Material was sent to Mayo Clinic for consult & they state "with focus of clear cells, agree that a likely primary is renal cell carcinoma." Abdominal CT showed no abnormality in kidneys. When the registrar abstracted the case she spoke to the managing physician who told her that "no specific site was found and it was, as of now, unknown." This was stated about three months after dx. Can we code as a renal primary based on pathologic information or should we code unknown based on CT and physician's statement?
Code this case to C64.9 [Kidney, NOS].
ICD-O-3 rule H states that the topography code attached to a morphology term may be used when the topographic site is not given in the diagnosis. Topography code C64.9 is attached to morphology code 8312/3 [Renal cell carcinoma] in ICD-O-3.
Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion.
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor.
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How would this field be coded, using the revised and expanded breast code, for a lesion described as "1.3 cm infiltrating ductal carcinoma, associated DCIS?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code size of primary tumor as 013. The phrasing suggests that the infiltrating ductal carcinoma measures 1.3 cm. DCIS is also present, but no size mentioned.
EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion.
Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized.
An official website of the United States government
Home