| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041054 | CS Extension--Prostate: For a tumor that is clinically inapparent, but a biopsy from the prostatic apex is positive, is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)]? | 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. Yes. Code CS Extension-Clinical Extension to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)] for clinically inapparent prostate cancer with positive apex biopsy. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041011 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Should this field be coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] or 30 [Localized, NOS] when the only information is from a biopsy positive pathology report that includes the clinical history of "PSA elevated, DRE negative," with no mention of an ultrasound being performed? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For this scenario, assign code 15 if an ultrasound was not performed, performed and negative, or when it is unknown whether or not an ultrasound was performed. Assign code 30 only if an ultrasound was performed and there is no documentation stating that it was negative or positive. Please refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines for all of the instructions pertaining to the coding of prostate EOD. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041053 | CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Can we interpret the in situ component as "minimal" when the pathology report states "1.1 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma and no extensive intraductal component"? | 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. Yes. Based on the information provided above, the in situ component is "mininmal" for the purpose of coding Breast CS Site Specific Factor 6. The phrase "no extensive intraductal component" suggests that there is some intraductal carcinoma present. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041040 | CS Tumor Size--Unknown & ill-defined site: For an unknown primary site, should this field be coded to 000 [No mass/tumor found] or 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record]? | 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 the CS Tumor Size field to 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record] when the primary site is unknown.
There is a discrepancy in Part I of the CS Manual on page 27, rule 5g, which says that primary site C80.9 should be coded as 888 not applicable. The CS Steering Committee has decided that the last line about unknown and ill-defined sites should be deleted from rule 5g. This issue will be addressed in a CS errata to be distributed in July 2004. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041019 | EOD-Extension--Lung: Is this field coded to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] or 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] when there is no mention of the mainstem bronchus and a lobectomy is performed? See Discussion. | The clinical work-up shows a mass at the left medial apex extending into the left lung. No mention of the main stem bronchus. Because a lobectomy was performed, we assume, per Note 2, that the tumor was greater than or equal to 2 cm from the carina. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] for the case example. The EOD-Extension code 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] applies to tumors involving the main stem bronchus. | 2004 |
|
|
20041093 | Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? | If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. | 2004 | |
|
|
20041091 | Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion. | CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.
If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD? |
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided: The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes]. Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS]. Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs. A physician description of "bulky disease" would not change the EOD for this case. |
2004 |
|
|
20041095 | Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignancy described as a "intracranial squamous cell carcinoma (8070) arising in a previous epidermoid cyst"? See Discussion. | 4-5-02 MRI Brain: Enhancing mass is probably a recurrence of the original tumor resected in 1983 (benign). 4-8-02 Gross resection. Lesion was coming up against her brain stem: Removed it grossly. Path: 4-8-02 Brain tumor, left temporal: SCC arising from a previous epidermoid cyst of the brain. XRT began 4-25-02. Path states: "Squamous lesions suspicious for malignant transformation of old epidermal cyst (1983). It has been reported in literature that epidermoid cysts in the brain can undergo a malignant transformation which is what happened in this case." It appears the patient has an intracranial epidermoid cyst that is now giving rise to SCC. Squamous cell carcinoma (8070) of the brain (C71_) fails the edit Primary Site, Morphology-Imposs ICDO3 (SEER IF38). |
Code the primary site to C760 [Ill-defined site; Head, face or neck, NOS]. There is an intracranial malignancy arising from a previously resected epidermoid cyst. Squamous cell carcinoma, primary of the brain, is a non-overridable edit error. | 2004 |
|
|
20041083 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion. | Rectal primary: 5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1. |
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 Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging. |
2004 |
|
|
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 |
Home
