Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20010157 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology of "invasive ductal carcinoma and in situ ductal carcinoma, cribriform type"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma] unless the combination is ductal and lobular.
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. |
2001 | |
|
|
20010075 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus"? See discussion. | Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. "Focus" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.
We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of 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. |
2001 |
|
|
20010132 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: What code is used to represent the histology "renal cell carcinoma with granular cell morphology"? Kidney primary with diagnosis of renal cell CA with granular cell morphology. Do we code as granular cell carcinoma? Is the term "morphology" synonymous with "type"? See discussion. | Do we code this type of tumor as a granular cell carcinoma [8580/3]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8320/3 [granular cell carcinoma]. Renal cell carcinoma is a non-specific term that has several specific cellular subtypes, one of which is granular cell [8320/3].
Note: Do not code to granular cell tumor [9580/3], which is not a histology related to renal cell 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. |
2001 |
|
|
20010097 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion. | If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. " |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, 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. |
2001 |
|
|
20010001 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, "B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... " Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM. |
2001 | |
|
|
20010145 | EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. | Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20? | The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category. |
2001 |
|
|
20010143 | EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Lung: How do you code these fields for clinically positive lymph nodes when the result of neoadjuvant treatment is that the lymph nodes are pathologically negative? See discussion. | The pt presents with "mediastinal adenopathy" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?
Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 2 [Mediastinal, NOS]. Code the EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 00/10. You will not have a problem with the SEER Edits. The EOD field is coded using clinical and pathologic information. All information gathered within four months of the date of diagnosis (in the absence of disease progression) or through completion of surgery(ies) can be used to code EOD. The clinically positive nodes justify the radiation therapy. |
2001 |
|
|
20010042 | Grade, Differentiation--Bone Marrow: Can we use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which lists myeloma as a B cell neoplasm under non-Hodgkin lymphomas, to code Grade, Differentiation field for myeloma to B-cell (code 6)? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: No. Myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells. Plasma cells are the daughters of B cells. So technically it would be correct to call them B cell, but that is not common usage.
Cell marker (phenotype) should be coded in the Grade, Differentiation field for only leukemias and lymphomas, as classified in the ICD-O-3. In the ICD-O-3, myeloma is listed under Plasma Cell Tumors, not Lymphomas. When a cell marker is coded for a leukemia/lymphoma it should be coded only from pathology and/or cytology reports.
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. |
2001 | |
|
|
20010043 | Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms "lytic" or "lysis" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition? | Although the term "lytic lesion" is often used to describe bone lesions and "tumor lysis" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words. | 2001 | |
|
|
20010164 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: If you only have a biopsy and not a resection of the primary site, can you code the size of the prostate nodule demonstrated on digital rectal exam? See discussion. | Example 1: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. TRUS-guided biopsy of left side of prostate shows adenocarcinoma. Right side biopsy is negative. Is size coded to 010 or 999?
Example 2: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. Bone scan was positive for metastatic disease. Is size coded to 010 or 999? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
You need path confirmation that a malignancy exists in the prostate before you can code the size of the nodule seen clinically.
Example 1: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 010 [1 cm], because the nodule in the prostate is confirmed as cancer by needle biopsy.
Example 2: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 999 because there was no pathologic confirmation of malignancy. |
2001 |
An official website of the United States government
