EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Melanoma: How do you code tumor size for a melanoma diagnosed by a positive lymph node biopsy when the primary site is coded C44.9 because no primary site was identified? See discussion.
Should the size be 000 because no primary was found or 999 for unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 000 [No mass; no tumor found] when primary site is coded to C449.
EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent this field for a corpus primary (sounding 8 cm or less in length) treated with radiation prior to a hysterectomy that pathologically showed superficial myometrial invasion? Is it possible that the invasion could have been more extensive prior to the radiation treatment?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium, inner half] which represents the extension you know. In this particular case, there was no clinical evidence of extension outside the corpus. As long as the surgery was not performed because of disease progression, use information from the surgery to code EOD extension.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can tumor size of 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] be used when there is a lung mass seen but the diagnosis is from a positive bronchopulmonary secretion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor code 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] is used only when there is no visible primary lung tumor and bronchopulmonary secretions are positive for lung malignancy.
Even if the diagnosis was made by cytology of broncho-pulmonary secretions, if there is a visible mass, code the size of the mass if known, code 999 if size is unknown.
EOD-Extension: General instructions, page 7, note 3 states: " Extent of disease information obtained after treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, hormone or immunotherapy has begun may be included." Because the SEER manual does not mention radiation treatment, can we use information from a lobectomy to code EOD if a patient has neoadjuvant radiation therapy?
Radiation therapy was inadvertently omitted from the list. Please see SINQ 20031012 answer as to when the surgical information can be used to stage the case.
EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of "long-standing pneumonia," is that synonymous with "pneumonitis" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent histology when the surgeon describes a sessile polyp and the final path diagnosis is stated as: "Rectal sessile polyp: Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma" (pathologist does not state that it is "arising in a sessile polyp")?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8210/3 [adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp]. The structure in which this adenocarcinoma is arising, is a polyp.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "papillary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid and mucinous subtypes"? See discussion.
Example: Fallopian tube right (salpingectomy): Primary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: Code the Histology field to 8323/3 [adenocarcinoma, mixed cell]. The case is coded using the mixed histology rule A in the Coding Complex Morph Dx's.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home