Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061130 | CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. | CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension. The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion. |
2006 |
|
|
20091007 | CS Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Assign CS extension code 20 [Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS (EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11) Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].
A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina. |
2009 | |
|
|
20061099 | CS Extension--Lung: If only a "single" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are "multiple" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061036 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: For lymphoma cases, can extension be coded to 80 [Nodular involvement of lungs] based on imaging or operative findings when there is no positive statement of involvement? See Discussion. | Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings? Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R. |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Extension code 80 can be assigned based on imaging or operative findings as in the lymphoma case described above. The fact that this extension was not based on pathological evidence is captured in the evaluation code. Assign CS/TS Ext-Eval code 0 [No staging laparotomy done. No autopsy evidence used (clinical)]. |
2006 |
|
|
20061071 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: In the absence of physician staging, is an "enlarged" spleen seen on CT coded as involvement of the spleen for lymphoma cases? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Do not code spleen involvement when the only evidence is an enlarged spleen. When imaging is the only diagnostic tool (no biopsy or splenectomy), spleen involvement is based on the presence of nodules and not on enlargement. Splenic enlargement alone (by physical exam or imaging) is insufficient to support involvement of spleen. |
2006 | |
|
|
20081067 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion. | CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008. |
2008 |
|
|
20071089 | CS Extension--Ovary: Are "non-invasive implants" identified per pathology coded differently than "invasive implants"? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.No, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary. |
2007 | |
|
|
20091034 | CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.
The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants. The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions. |
2009 | |
|
|
20091035 | CS Extension--Ovary: What code is used to capture omental caking? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.The term "omental caking" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.
When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case. |
2009 | |
|
|
20061048 | CS Extension--Pancreas, Head: When a tumor is described as having "vascular encasement of the celiac artery", is extension coded to 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis]? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Code vascular encasement of the celiac artery to CS extension code 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis].
This celiac axis is a small (1cm) area of branching arteries. The celiac artery branches into hepatic, gastric, and splenic at the axis. Dissecting tumor out from around the celiac axis is very tricky and usually encasement by tumor is a sign of inoperability. |
2006 |
An official website of the United States government
