Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071058 | CS Tumor Size: Is a measured "area" equivalent to a tumor, mass or lesion size? See Discussion. |
Collaborative Stage manual, page 26 Rule 4a: "always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis." Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm. |
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.In general, a measured area is not equivalent to a tumor size. Do not apply the rule related to the breast example to other primary sites. This example in the CS manual pertains to coding tumor size for breast primaries when the size of the invasive component is not stated. In the example, the area involved with duct carcinoma in situ is the only measurement available. The size of the invasive component was not given. |
2007 |
|
|
20071044 | Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field? |
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up. The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology." |
2007 | |
|
|
20200032 | Date of Diagnosis--Brain and CNS: How is the Date of Diagnosis coded when an MRI clinically diagnoses a borderline brain tumor on 4/4/2020, but the subsequent biopsy pathologically diagnoses a malignant brain tumor on 5/20/2020? See Discussion. |
Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date. For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed? |
This tumor was first diagnosed on 4/4/2020 according to the information provided. The pineocytoma was reportable based on a behavior of /1; it was later confirmed as a pineal germinoma; update both the histology and behavior on the abstract as better information was obtained, retaining the original date of diagnosis. |
2020 |
|
|
20180037 | Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy? |
Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis. |
2018 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology. |
2018 | |
|
|
20031100 | Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description. |
Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease. |
Updated answer July 2024 No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma. |
2003 |
|
|
20031052 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description. |
Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)? |
Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias. |
2003 |
|
|
20170006 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): To code "3" in Diagnostic Confirmation, does the genetic testing need to confirm a specific histology or is it enough that is simply rules out others? See Discussion. |
For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123. |
Both histologic plus immunophenotyping or genetic testing should be positive to assign code 3 for Diagnostic Confirmation. The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Diagnostic Confirmation instructions state, assign 3 for Cases positive for neoplasm being abstracted (including acceptable ambiguous terminology and provisional diagnosis) AND Immunophenotyping, genetic testing, or JAK2 is listed in the Definitive Diagnosis in the Heme DB AND a.) Confirms the neoplasm OR b.) Identifies a more specific histology (not preceded by ambiguous terminology). Because the patient was diagnosed with DLBCL by histology, and flow cytometry was positive for CD antigens (immunophenotyping) 20, 22, and 30 for DLBCL, code 3 is appropriate. |
2017 |
|
|
20210044 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Plasma Cell Myeloma: Can serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) be used as a definitive diagnostic method in the absence of a bone marrow biopsy? Is it appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) if there is no histological confirmation? See Discussion. |
Patient was diagnosed with lambda myeloma based on the M spike found on serum protein electrophoresis. A bone marrow biopsy was performed, but it was an insufficient sample. SPEP is not listed in the Hematopoietic Database as a lab test that can be used as a definitive diagnostic method. Since the physician did base the diagnosis on the SPEP result, would it be appropriate to assign code 5 (Positive laboratory test/marker study) since there was no histological confirmation? Under code 5, the Hematopoietic Manual states: Laboratory tests are listed under Definitive Diagnostic Methods in the Hematopoietic Database. |
Assign code 5 in Diagnostic Confirmation. We consulted with an expert hematopathologist who stated that SPEP would qualify for a diagnostic confirmation code of 5. He also stated that normally a SPEP is followed by a bone marrow biopsy. SPEP has been added to the Definitive Diagnostic Methods for plasma cell myeloma (9732/3). |
2021 |
An official website of the United States government
