EOD Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Lymph Node fields: How do you code these fields if a pt has multiple lymph nodes surgeries at different times? See discussion.
Example: 1/01/03 Biopsy of 1 sentinel lymph node: positive for metastasis. 1/10/03 Modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection: ductal carcinoma with 8 neg lymph nodes.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 7. Code EOD Lymph Nodes field to 6. Code EOD Pathologic Number of Reg LN Positive and Examined fields to 01 and 09 respectively.
For the Scope of Reg LN Surgery use the highest applicable code number if more than one Scope of Reg LN Surgery was performed. The EOD lymph node fields are cumulative and count all lymph nodes removed during the diagnostic and first course treatment procedures.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.
Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion.
Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, "a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.
Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.
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.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: For skin primaries diagnosed 1998-2002, what is the difference between code 40 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation, NOS] and 50 [Radical excision of a lesion, NOS]?
Codes 40 and 50 are not in the scheme for 2003 forward. See history for coding cases diagnosed 1998-2002.
An official website of the United States government
Home