Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021176 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals "infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with "invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.
Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple primaries.
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20020009 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma that involves the spleen and lymph nodes above the diaphragm (e.g., involvement of only the spleen below the diaphragm and cervical lymph nodes above the diaphragm)? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 32 [30 + involvement of the spleen; III S]. The spleen is counted twice (once as the spleen and a second time as a lymph node region below the diaphragm). As a result, the EOD-Extension field is coded to reflect involvement of lymph node regions on both sides of the diaphragm plus involvement of the spleen. See Note 1 on the EOD scheme that states "Any lymphatic structure is to be coded the same as a lymph node region." |
2002 | |
|
|
20021184 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.
The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021053 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion. | 1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca. 2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas. 3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca. 4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]? 5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?) 6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?) |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to: 1) 10 2) 10 3) 10 4) 99 5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76 6) 85 |
2002 |
|
|
20021143 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. | How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.
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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021091 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion. |
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER. 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021011 | Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code/Primary Site: How would you code these fields for a case in which an infant presents with a skin rash, enlarged spleen, palpable abdominal mass, inconclusive bone marrow biopsy and a skin biopsy that was positive for "Langerhans cell histiocytosis"? See discussion. | The pathologist states, "I would consider this case a malignancy, although it does not always behave as such. Lesions in babies often act in a malignant manner." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the pathologist states this is a malignancy, the case is reportable. Code the Histology field to 9751/3 [Langerhans cell histiocytosis, NOS] and change the Behavior Code from 1 to 3. Code the Primary Site field to skin [C44._].
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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021060 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: The EOD Manual instructs us not to code the size of a cyst. Can we code the size of tumor lesions described as being multicystic, multiloculated, or as a complex mass with cystic areas? See discussion. | Example 1: Large multicystic ovarian mass lesion measuring 10 cm. Sections through the specimen show a multicystic and solid mass with abundant fluid exuding from the cut surfaces (Size of the solid portions is not stated).
Example 2: A brain MRI: 9-cm. complex mass with cystic areas. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes, if the cystic mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field based on the size of the mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description. For the examples in the discussion section, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to: 1) 100 [10 cm]. 2) 090 [9 cm].
As a point of interest, the size of tumor for ovarian and brain primaries is not used in either analysis or as a prognostic indicator for survival. Therefore, spending time separating the cystic and solid portions of the tumor is unnecessary. |
2002 |
|
|
20021103 | Surgery of Primary Site/First Course Treatment--Liver: If disease progression is so rapid that the initial therapy plan is changed before patient receives any therapy, would "no therapy" be the first course? See discussion. | Patient was diagnosed with liver cancer on 8/23 and on 9/6 a hepatectomy was recommended. However, patient was hospitalized on 9/19 with ascites. Patient underwent embolization instead of a hepatectomy during that admission. | Code the "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) in Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS]. The embolization is coded as first course of therapy for this case because it seems that this patient was not adequately staged until 9/19 -- there is no indication on this case of the stage of disease in August or early September. Furthermore, no treatment was started before the embolization. Therefore, the ascites is not "progression of disease" in this case -- it is taken into account as part of the initial stage of disease. This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005. |
2002 |
|
|
20021142 | Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? | Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
