Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021149 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. | A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.
If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous. |
2002 |
|
|
20000429 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion. | Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.
For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)
Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.
If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999. |
2000 |
|
|
20021205 | EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration. |
2002 | |
|
|
20000418 | Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding. |
2000 | |
|
|
20021036 | EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only. |
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 | |
|
|
20021201 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone. 2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT). 3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I]. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021048 | EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion. | For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field. |
2002 |
|
|
20031086 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Must all three criteria be met (an elevated PSA; documentation that the physical exam was negative; and, if a TRUS was done, there is documentation that the findings were negative) in order to code this field to 15 [Tumor identified by needle by elevated PSA]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines, Final version distributed to SEER Registries 6/20/2001.
Prostate clinical EOD extension code 15 is used when all three criteria are met as listed on page 3 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. Meeting 1 or 2 of the 3 criteria is not sufficient for code 15. PE must be done and documented as negative. TRUS may or may not be done, but if done, must be documented as negative. PSA must either be elevated or there is no documentation about the PSA.
Codes 20 and 23-24 would be used with positive physical exam or positive TRUS.
Use codes 30-34 when there is no documentation that the physical exam was negative, or no documentation that the TRUS was negative, or when the prostatic apex is involved. |
2003 | |
|
|
20021053 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion. | 1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca. 2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas. 3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca. 4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]? 5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?) 6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?) |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to: 1) 10 2) 10 3) 10 4) 99 5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76 6) 85 |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
