Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion.
If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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.
EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret "dermal lymphovascular space invasion" and "dermal lymphovascular invasion" for extension? See discussion.
A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state "dermal lymphovascular invasion". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion.
EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How do you code myometrial involvement described as 1) "to the level of the middle one-third" or 2) "superficial"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Evaluate each case carefully.
1. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] because the pathology report indicates involvement of the myometrium "to the level of." However, if you feel that you cannot make that determination with certainty and you cannot ask a pathologist for clarification, then code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [Myometrium, NOS].
2. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] for cases with "superficial" myometrial invasion.
EOD-Extension--Mycosis Fungoides: Explain the difference between extension codes 25 [% of body surface not stated, no tumors] and 30 [skin involvement, NOS; extent not stated, no tumors. Localized, NOS]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For mycosis fungoides: Use code 25 when skin involvement is present but only a general location/site is mentioned (i.e., face, legs, torso, arms).
Use code 30 when there is skin involvement but there is no mention of location/site.
Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: In coding lymph node involvement for a testicular primary, should we use code 5 (Size not stated) when there is not a pathologic size of the lymph node provided? See discussion.
Should Note 1 in the testis EOD be changed to "Metastases in lymph nodes are now measured by the size of the lymph node as stated in pathology report"? The SEER EOD-88, 3rd Edition, states that "when size of regional lymph nodes is required, code from the pathology report."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For testis cases only, "metastasis in lymph nodes" is measured by the size of the lymph node or the lymph node mass. It is acceptable to code the size of this metastasis from a CT scan or other imaging when a pathology specimen is not available for testicular primaries.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.
Which size should be used for these examples?
1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.
2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.
1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.
2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.
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-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
An official website of the United States government
Home