System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 05/25/2025 17:59 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031068

EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.

Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.

 2003
20021130

EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.

Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.

 2002
20010001

EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, "B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... " Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM.

 2001
20000533

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.

 2000
20031039

EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description.

CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?

Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor.

Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging.

 2003
20020050

EOD Clinical Extension--Prostate: Can you assign code 15 if there is no TURP and no physical exam? See discussion.

[Code 15 = Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g. for elevated PSA, (T1c)]

 Prostate case: Elevated PSA, Prostate u/s: no abnormal findings, Prostate biopsy: adenocarcinoma. Can this be clinically coded as 15? According to Prostate EOD Coding Guide (6/2001), code 15 requires documentation that the physical exam was negative, but in this case, we have no physical info.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD Clinical Extension field to 30-34 when there is no documentation saying that the physical examination was negative.

 2002
20210069

EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Intrahepatic Bile Duct:  How should Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor (PT) be coded for invasion of or into (but not through) the visceral peritoneum for an intrahepatic bile duct primary?  See Discussion.

Invasion of the visceral peritoneum is Regional (code 2) in Summary Stage.  EOD PT code 500 is for invasion BEYOND the visceral peritoneum into adjacent connective tissues, and maps to T3 and Regional Summary Stage, but that code seems too extensive. All lower EOD codes map to Localized Summary Stage.

Assign code 500 for EOD Primary Tumor for now.

We have confirmed with AJCC that "invasion of" but not "through" the visceral peritoneum maps to a T2 and not T3. Involvement of the visceral peritoneum for Summary Stage is Regional and does not make a distinction between "invasion of" or "invasion through." Any involvement of the visceral peritoneum is regional.

To correct this situation would require a new code, which would derive a T2/RE. That code will be added to the updates for 2023.

Code 500 will derive the appropriate Summary Stage of 2 (Regional). We are aware that this will derive the incorrect T; however, there is no work around at this time that will derive the correct T and Summary Stage, so we are defaulting to deriving the correct Summary Stage.

 2021
20200039

EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--GIST: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) and Summary Stage be coded for a multifocal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)? See Discussion.

Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.

For this case, report each GIST diagnosis separately. This differs from SINQ 20190041 because in that case the stomach GIST was incidental and measured only 0.3 cm. Reporting these separately means that each one is no longer a multifocal tumor. If there is no other indication of malignancy for these, they would not be reportable if diagnosed in 2020 or earlier.

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, all GIST are reportable. Report this as two primaries. Use the new GIST schema for EOD and assign EOD Primary Tumor 100 for each. There is no mention of extension outside the primary site. Summary Stage is Localized for each.

 2020
20190001

EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--Brain and CNS: What are the Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor, EOD Reg Nodes, and Summary Stage 2018 codes for intradural schwannoma of the lumbar spine (L2-L4)? See Discussion.

Example: Patient diagnosed following a resection of a cystic mass at L2-4 that proved an intradural tumor excision with final diagnosis of schwannoma, WHO grade 1.

Per new Solid Tumor Rules, the primary site in this case should be coded C476 (peripheral nerves of trunk, NOS) and histology is 9560/0 (schwannoma, NOS). However, there are currently no coding options in the Soft Tissue of Trunk and Extremities EOD schema relating to a benign tumor. Likewise there are no coding options in the Soft Tissue and Sarcoma Summary Stage 2018 schema relating to a benign tumor.

How should EOD 2018 and Summary Stage 2018 be coded for reportable benign schwannomas of the spinal nerve roots?

The instruction regarding C476 has been removed from the Solid Tumor rules. Benign and borderline neoplasms coded to C470-C479 are not reportable at this time.

Assign C720 for an intradural schwannoma at L2-4. That should allow you to use the correct EOD and Summary Stage 2018 schemas.

 2019
20190086

EOD 2018/Primary tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise.

* Code 000: In situ

* Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

* Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level)

Code 000: Level I (In situ)

Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Code 300: Level IV (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 2019