System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/19/2025 13:28 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061046 First Course Treatment--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are Decadron and Zometa coded when used in the treatment of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. The 2004 SEER Program Manual instructions for coding hormone therapy do not provide any specific instructions for coding adrenocorticotrophic agents. Per Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases pg. 3, prednisone and decadron are coded as hormonal therapy (when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen). Does this mean that Decadron without chemo agents is not coded as treatment? In paging through the hematopoietic disease manual, one sees this instruction for other sites as well. Yet, for other diseases (e.g., Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia on page 18), prednisone is coded as hormone therapy (not necessarily as part of chemo regimen).

Code the decadron as hormonal treatment. Do not code the zometa--it is an ancillary agent.

In the August 2006 update of SEER*Rx, a note was added to decadron and other hormonal agents that they can be used to control white cell proliferation in lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

In general, decadron is used more commonly for supportive care and as an antiemetic than as hormone therapy.

 2006
20071054 Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion. Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?

Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.

The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.

 2007
20150027

Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion.

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection.

2015
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013
20000512 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Kaposi Sarcoma: What code is used to represent this field for a Kaposi sarcoma with no skin lesions but positive lymph node and bone marrow biopsies?

Code the EOD-Extension field to 13 [Visceral (e.g., pulmonary, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, other)], because of the positive bone marrow. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 3 [Both clinically enlarged palpable lymph nodes (adenopathy) and pathologically positive lymph nodes], for the pathologically positive node.

Note: Potential revision of the extension scheme will be referred to SEER Medical Advisory Group (SMAG).

 2000
20000486 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a groin mass excision containing 4 lymph nodes for a Kaposi sarcoma case that presented with multiple skin lesions?

Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 99 99 for Kaposi cases that present systemically and for those that present in more than one site (which includes cases with more than one skin subsite involved at diagnosis). There are no "regional" lymph nodes for such cases. This represents a majority of currently diagnosed Kaposi cases. However, for localized Kaposi cases, you can count the number of regional lymph nodes positive and examined if the primary site selected has a regional lymph node chain(s) associated with it (e.g., soft palate, hard palate, or a skin subsite).

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the groin mass excision in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed; Non-primary surgical resection to other site(s), unknown if whether the site(s) is regional or distant].

 2000
20021204 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.

If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.

 2002
20140065

Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.

The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.

Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?

Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.

2014
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 2002