Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031067 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?" See Description. | A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET." Neither are compatible with site. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva). Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031066 | Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of "infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: "Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else."
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20031062 | Primary Site--Melanoma: How would this field be coded for a pleural effusion consistent with metastatic melanoma and "no skin lesions?" | Code primary site as C44.9 [Skin, NOS]. ICD-O-3 does not list a suggested site code for 8720/3 because melanoma can arise in other parts of the body. However, C44.9 [Skin, NOS] is the default when the primary cannot be found. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031060 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Because histology 9895/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia] was recognized as a distinct entity by WHO with too few cases of the subtypes [with or without prior MDS] to warrant separate histology codes for each, should the wording for the non-bold definitions in ICD-O-3 be changed to the following in both the alpha and numeric sections? See Description.
AML with multilineage dysplasia and prior MDS AML with multilineage dysplasia and without prior MDS |
How do we code histology for the following case of AML? Patient was admitted for profound anemia and thrombocytopenia with no immediate explanation. Path final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy: acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Per micro description: findings are characteristic of AML that appears to be arising within the context of a myelodysplastic syndrome. The discharge diagnosis (2 days after bone marrow biopsy) read: myelodysplastic syndrome with profound anemia and thrombocytopenia. Do we code the histology per the final path diagnosis (code 9861/3)? Using the current version of ICD-O-3, we could arrive at a histology code of 9895/3 based on the micro findings of AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome. However, per the above-mentioned SEER e-mail, we would not because there was no mention of multilineage dysplasia. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:To assign code 9895, it is important that the diagnosis includes "multilineage dysplasia." Use code 9895 when the diagnosis is with or without prior (not concurrent) myelodysplastic syndrome AND multilineage dysplasia. Acute myeloid leukemia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome and without multilineage dysplasia is coded 9861 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. Although the wording of 9895 cannot be changed, coders can make a note that the synonyms are intended to include: -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia with prior myelodysplastic syndrome and -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome. The histology code for the case example is 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031059 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Description. | A breast cancer patient had a FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, the number of Regional Nodes Positive and Examined include all nodes examined by the pathologist, unless there is disease progression. In other words, these fields are cumulative. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 97 for number positive and 95 for number examined. 1 & 2. Assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Case example: Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07. | 2003 |
|
|
20031057 | Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: How is this field coded for a five grade system? See Description. | Example: Invasive, high grade transitional cell carcinoma (Grade 4-5/5) | For this example, code grade as 4 based on the term "High grade." If "high grade" was not stated, the grade would be coded as 9, not determined. There is no SEER translation between the ICD-O grades and a five grade system for bladder. None of the pathololgist experts we querried knew of a five grade system for bladder. | 2003 |
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031055 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion. |
We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation.... Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031054 | Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma? | Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record. In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding. |
2003 |
An official website of the United States government
