EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.
Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.
Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.
Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?
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 extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.
Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.
MP/H Rules/Multiplicity Counter--Lung: If metastatic tumors are not counted in this field, should the multiplicity counter be coded to 01 for a case with a primary left lower lobe of lung tumor with a satellite tumor in the left upper lobe?
For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:
No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.
Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.
Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion.
Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.
The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.
Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.
This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.
Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Conclusive Terminology: If there is an unknown date of diagnosis, should the Ambiguous Terminology field always be coded to 9 and the Date of Conclusive Terminology be coded to 99999999? See Discussion.
Scenario: Mammogram is suspicious for carcinoma, unknown date in 2007. A biopsy prior to admission to reporting facility is positive for carcinoma. Patient seen at reporting facility in June 2007 for treatment.
The purpose of the data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to flag cases entered into the registry based on a diagnosis with ambiguous terminology. Because the case above was entered into the registry based on conclusive terminology, code Ambiguous Terminology to 0 [Conclusive term] and code Date of Conclusive Terminology to 88888888 [not applicable].
CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Given that the CS Manual instruction is to code the highest PSA value recorded in the medical record, can a PSA value obtained a year prior to admission be used to code the SSF 1 and SSF2 fields?
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 PSA recorded in CS SSF 1 and 2 must be documented in the medical record. Record the highest PSA value prior to diagnostic biopsy or treatment. If the highest PSA value documented in the medical record is from the previous year, record it.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Esophagus: Is a case with a biopsy diagnosis of "... focal areas suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ change" reportable if the diagnosis on the partial esophagectomy specimen only includes the phrase "... with foci of high grade dysplasia; no invasive carcinoma identified"?
The case is not reportable.
The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.
Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion.
For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor?
If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors.
Histology--Melanoma: How is a "malignant melanoma arising in a melanocytic nevus" coded?
The histology code is 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS].
There is no specific code for melanoma arising in melanocytic nevus. According to our pathologist consultant, this is likely because nevi are so common, melanoma arising in association with them is common and appears to have no bearing on prognosis or treatment. Most pathologists do not include the nevus in the diagnosis of melanoma, even when they see it.
Code melanomas arising in melanocytic nevi to the appropriate melanoma code, probably 8720, 8721, or 8743 in most cases.
An official website of the United States government
Home