EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion.
The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD Fields: When a patient has two simultaneously diagnosed primaries, and a regional lymph node dissection intended for one of the primaries removes nodes that are also regional for the other primary, is the information from the lymph node dissection coded for both primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the lymph nodes are negative, the status of nodes that are regional for both sites would be used to code the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery fields for both sites.
If any of the lymph nodes are positive use the histology from the lymph nodes to determine how the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery will be coded. For example: If prostate cancer is an incidental finding when a cystoprostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are done to treat a bladder cancer, and all of the positive lymph nodes reflect the histology of the prostate primary (adenocarcinoma), code the nodes as positive for the prostate primary and negative for the bladder primary.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.
Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the "Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy" field only relate to the "Surgery of Primary Site" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion.
Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]?
For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field "Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions.
Histology--CLL/SLL: If a tissue diagnosis of "small lymphocytic lymphoma" is made six months after an initial blood diagnosis of "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" should the histology be updated from 9823/3 to 9670/3?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not change the histology to small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3). The chronic lymphocytic leukemia has advanced/progressed and disseminated into other tissues from the blood during the last six months. If the patient presents with disease in the blood and/or bone marrow only, code to CLL. If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For the case cited, the tissue involvement occurred six months after the initial diagnosis and the histology code is not changed to reflect the progression of disease.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries?
Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034].
Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.
PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: If the grade given for the primary site is from a provisional diagnosis and the grade given for a metastatic site is from a final diagnosis, should we follow the SEER rule that says to code the grade as stated in the final diagnosis (e.g., Provisional diagnosis: High grade papillary serous carcinoma of ovary. Final dx: poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in a caval lymph node)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 4 [High grade] from the examination of the ovary (primary site). Do not code grade from a metastatic site.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.
An official website of the United States government
Home