EOD-Extension--Bladder: Both papillary transitional cell ca in situ and sessile (flat) transitional cell ca in situ are diagnosed simultaneously in the bladder. We code the higher histology (8130/2). For extension, do we use the code that corresponds to the histology (01), or to the higher extension code (06)?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 06 [sessile (flat) (solid) carcinoma in situ], the higher extension code.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Tumor Size--Can the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information, on page 6 in the SEER EOD Manual, January 1998, be used to code descriptive tumor size in Collaborative Stage?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Use the instructions in the CS Manual, Appendix 1, page 62. This information will be added to the 2004 SEER manual in the next update.
Do not use the Determining Descriptive Tumor Size information from EOD for CS Tumor Size.
Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds "what appears to be the top of a melanoma" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds "features consistent with lentigo maligna?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type.
According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.
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/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.
When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the "tumor size" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.
CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.
Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.
Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.
Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD Fields/Surgery of Primary Site--Abdomen, NOS: What codes are used to represent these fields for a case with a resection of the rectosigmoid and adjacent tumor mass that demonstrated no tumor in the rectosigmoid but extramural to the colon there was an endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising in association with an area of endometriosis (possibly within the pericolic soft tissue or in an ovarian remnant)?
Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: How are "malignant cells" in a cytology or "probably malignancy" in a CT scan coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8001/3 [Tumor cells, malignant] when the only information available is a cytology report stating "malignant cells."
Assign code 8000/3 [Neoplasm, malignant] when then only information available is a CT report stating "probable malignancy."
See ICD-O-3 page 27 for an explanation of "cancer" [8000] and "carcinoma" [8010].
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.
Primary site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior: What is the correct site and histology/behavior for the following diagnosis: "mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei." This was diagnosed at e-lap for a separate adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The appropriate code for mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei is C18.1 8470/0. It is not reportable to SEER. According to our pathologist consultant, mucinous cystadenoma is a legitimate term for such appendiceal tumors. They may implant all over the peritoneum as pseudomyxoma peritonei, especially in the face of perforation, without being histologically malignant.
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.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Ovary: How are renal lymph nodes coded for ovary primaries?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx. Renal lymph nodes are not listed as regional lymph nodes for ovary; therefore, code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx.
An official website of the United States government
Home