| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041042 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries, with what histology(ies) should be coded when nephrectomy pathology specimen shows separate tumors of "renal cell carcinoma [clear cell type]" and "renal cell carcinoma [granular cell type]"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract two primaries. This is an example of two tumors with different histologic types in the same site. The right kidney has two separate tumors.
8310/3 [renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type)] 8320/3 [renal cell carcinoma (granular cell type)]
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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041033 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion. |
Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)." | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists. 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. |
2004 |
|
|
20041039 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two 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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041009 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Lymphoma: Can lymphoma be diagnosed clinically? See Description. | Example 1: Patient with B symptoms. Physical exam reveals large neck mass. Physician impression is lymphoma. Example 2: CT scans show lymphadenopathy consistent with lymphoma. In both cases, patient does not return for biopsies. |
Yes, lymphoma can be accessioned based on a clinical diagnosis. Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 1 as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 2 as 7 [Radiography and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation]. |
2004 |
|
|
20041079 | CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic 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. The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1. Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each. Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041062 | Histology (Pre-2007): Can we ever code this field using a more specific cell type from a metastatic site specimen rather than to a less specific cell type from the primary site specimen? See Discussion. | The histology for a metastatic deposit biopsy is mucin-producing adenocarcinoma. This report states that the primary site is the stomach. It is more specific than the histology from the stomach biopsy described as adenocarcinoma, NOS. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology for the case example to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma], the more specific histology.
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. |
2004 |
|
|
20041024 | Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable? |
No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041086 | Histology (Pre-2007)/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Colon: How are these fields coded if a 3 cm sessile polyp is snared and removed piecemeal during a colonoscopy and the path microscopic description indicates a polypoid lesion with foci of malignant transformation found associated with bundles of smooth muscles followed by a LAR with no residual invasive tumor but the final path diagnosis is stated to be a M.D. adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. | 3/04 colonoscopy 3cm sessile polyp snared & removed piecemeal. Path Micro: Polypoid lesion consists of branching & complex neoplastic glands lined by tall columnar epithelial...These foci of malignant transformation are assoicated with large polygonal epithelial...associated with desmoplastic stromal reaction & neoplastic glands can be found associated with bundles of smooth muscle. 4/04 LAR: focus of residual HG dysplasia: no residual invasive tumor. Final path dx: MD adenocarcinoma. Physician staged: T2 N0 M0. Histology: 8140 vs 8210 Tumor Size: 030 vs 999 vs 990 Extension: 12 vs 20 |
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. For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based only on information provided: Histology: 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in a polyp] Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown] CS Extension: 20 [Muscularis propria invaded]
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. |
2004 |
|
|
20041084 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is thisĀ one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual. Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077]. 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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041067 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Does 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma], 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] best represent this field for a lung biopsy described as a "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with squamous and glandular features with focal mucin positivity per mucin stain"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560/33 [Adenosquamous carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. "Glandular" carcinoma is a synonym for adenocarcinoma. Mixed adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is coded to 8560. Do not use code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] when a more specific complex code is available.
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. |
2004 |
Home
