Date of Diagnosis: If a clinician states his current diagnosis of malignancy is based on a CT scan done at an early date that contained a diagnosis of only "neoplasm" or "worrisome for carcinoma" should the date of diagnosis be the date of the scan?
Yes. Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. The physician's clinical impression upon reviewing the earlier scan, is that the malignancy was confirmed by the scan. If there is a medical review of a previous scan that indicates the patient had a malignancy at an earlier date, then the earlier date is the date of diagnosis, i.e., the date is back-dated.
Primary Site--Pancreas: Should tumors with the histology "islet cell carcinoma" be coded C25.4 [Islet of Langerhans] even though the tumor location is stated to be in head of pancreas?
Assign code C25.4 [Islets of Langerhans...Endocrine pancreas]. Islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas is a tumor of the endocrine pancreas. Although Islet cells are present throughout the pancreas, the best code is C25.4 to distinguish endocrine from exocrine cancers.
Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?
"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."
Histology--Pancreas: How is a "gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm" coded that has lymph node metastasis?
The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].
Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Is the code 8740/3 [malignant melanoma in a junctional nevus] to be used when the pathologic diagnosis is "malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS] for malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus. A compound nevus is not the same as a junctional nevus.
ICD-O-3 does not have a specific code for melanoma in a compound nevus. Assign the code for the type of melanoma specified; for example, NOS, superficial spreading, etc.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma.
This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised.
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable?
No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is this a reportable case and if so what codes would be used for the primary site and histology?
Lymph node flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy revealed involvement by a low-grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Medical oncologist states monoclonal gammopathy, question marginal zone B cell lymphoma versus lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/lymphoproliferative disorder.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. Low grade B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder is not reportable, nor is monoclonal gammopathy. There is no definitive diagnosis for marginal zone or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. The terminology used includes "question" and "versus" which are not acceptable ambiguous terms for reportability. If possible, follow up with the physician regarding the definitive diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home