CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ disease?
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 CS tumor size 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded for a melanoma primary when melanoma is identified in lymph nodes but no primary skin tumor is found? See Discussion.
Excisional biopsy of an inguinal lymph node revealed metastatic melanoma. Multiple skin biopsies did not reveal the primary site.
Subsequent lymph node dissection of superficial inguinal nodes showed microscopic focus of malignant melanoma in subcutaneous fat adjacent to previous procedure site. No evidence of metastatic melanoma in 7 lymph nodes. Dissection of external iliac lymph nodes showed no evidence of melanoma in 5 lymph nodes.
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 CS Lymph Nodes 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS]. Code CS Mets at DX 00 [None]. Since it cannot be determined whether the lymph nodes are regional or distant, code CS Lymph Nodes to lymph nodes, NOS.
Laterality--Breast: Should laterality be coded to 9 [Paired site but no information concerning laterality] or to the side with the positive lymph nodes for a case in which no breast mass is found but positive axillary lymph nodes are found on only one side?
Code laterality of the primary site to the side with the positive nodes when there are unilateral positive nodes and the laterality of the primary site is otherwise unknown.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded when a nipple biopsy demonstrates Paget disease and a separate biopsy in the same breast demonstrates inflammatory breast carcinoma? See Discussion.
Should Paget disease be coded as the histology because it has a higher histology code than inflammatory carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the inflammatory carcinoma as one primary and the Paget disease as a separate primary. The first three digits of the histology codes for these histologies are different (8530 and 8540). Therefore, these are separate 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.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).
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.
Chemotherapy: If a physician does not document the reason chemotherapy was given concurrently with radiation therapy, should it be assumed to have been used as a radiosensitizer or radioprotectant and then, per SEER chemotherapy coding instruction 2, ignore coding the chemo agent as treatment?
Do not assume that a chemo agent given with radiation therapy is a radiosensitizer. Seek additional information.
Compare the dose given to the dose normally given for treatment. When chemotherapeutic agents are used as radiosensitizers or radioprotectants, they are given at a much lower dose.
CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Corpus uteri: Is a microscopic metastasis in a cul-de-sac implant more appropriately reflected in the CS Extension field code 80 [Further contiguous extension; cul-de-sac] or in the CS Mets at Dx field code 40 [Distant metastasis]?
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 code 80 [Further contiguous extension; Cul de sac] for CS extension in this case. Endometrium and ovary are exceptions to the rules that only contiguous extension is coded in Extension code 80. Only true distant metastases are coded in Mets at Dx.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is benign neural tissue compatible with a glioneuronal hamartoma of the cerebellopontine angle reportable?
No. A glioneuronal hamartoma is not neoplastic and not reportable. See page 2 of the 2004 SEER Program Coding and Staging manual for the list of reportable brain/CNS tumors. There is no ICD-O-3 code for hamartoma.
Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion.
Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.
Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:
Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.
Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.
Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.
COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future.
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/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home