Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: Does code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions; autopsy only case] or code 1 [ Cancer-directed surgery not recommended] have priority when coding this field for extensive tumors not surgically treated because of existing comorbidities? See discussion.
Example:
Patient has Stage IVA carcinoma of the tongue. The physician states that patient is not felt to be a good surgical candidate secondary to multiple medical frailties. Patient is treated with beam radiation.
In this case, how do we code Reason for No Site Specific Surgery? Do we use code 2 because surgery was contraindicated due to co-existing medical conditions or do we use code 1 because the tumor is very extensive and surgery would probably not be done anyway?
SEER has not established a priority for assigning the Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site codes. Assign the code which best describes the reason surgery was not performed.
Example: Assign code 2, Contraindicated due to patient risk factors. According to the physician, this is the reason that surgery was not performed.
Reason No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is this field always coded to 1 [not performed, not part of first course] for leukemias & other hematopoietic diseases?
For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For sites where "Surgery of the primary site" is coded 00 or 98 (hematopoietic included), Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site should be coded as 1 [Surgery of the primary site not performed because it was not part of the planned first course of treatment]. On rare occasions, there may be surgery to the primary site for a hematopoietic disease, such as an excisional biopsy of a myeloid sarcoma. Refer to the "Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases" for cell-type-specific treatment information.
Reason no surgery of primary site/First course treatment: If the Reason no Surgery of Primary Site field is coded as 7 (refused), must the other treatment options (radiation, chemo, hormone) also be coded as 7? See Discussion.
Coding instruction #5 in the SEER manual states: "Assign code 7 (refused) if the patient refused recommended surgery or made a blanket statement that he/she refused all treatment."
Refused [code 7] means this modality was specifically recommended by the physician and the patient refused. If two treatment alternatives were offered and surgery was refused, code Reason no surgery of primary site 1 [Surgery of the primary site was not performed because it was not part of the planned first-course treatment].
Refusal of surgery does not necessarily mean that all treatment was refused. Coding Surgery of Primary Site as "refused" does not affect the coding of Radiation, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, etc.
Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the "Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy" field only relate to the "Surgery of Primary Site" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion.
Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]?
For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field "Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions.
Reportability--Anal canal: Are squamous cell carcinomas arising in a condyloma of the rectum reportable or should we assume that the site is skin of anus or perianal area and not reportable?
Squamous cell carcinoma arising in a rectal condyloma is reportable. Do not assume the site is skin of anus or perianal.
Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus?
Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus.
Reportability--Appendix: Is a low grade mucinous neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential with an in situ mucinous cystadenoma component reportable? See Discussion.
The patient was diagnosed with pseudomyxoma peritonei and the pathology report final diagnosis stated, "Low grade mucinous neoplasm, of uncertain malignant potential, involving a dilated appendix (5cm) with the following features: In situ mucinous cystadenoma component is identified, with low-grade cytology of neoplastic epithelium." Does the presence of an in situ component make this mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix reportable based on the ICD-O-3 matrix rule?
This diagnosis is not reportable. Cystadenoma is not reportable. The "in situ" description in this case does not make cystadenoma reportable.
According to our expert pathologist consultant, this is a "non-invasive, low grade, epithelial proliferation in an often cystic appendiceal tumor, 8480/1. If this has leaked or ruptured it can seed the peritoneal cavity causing pseudomyxoma peritonei."
Reportability--Appendix: Is a metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm reportable if the pathologist states that it is a borderline tumor of the appendix? See Discussion.
Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm; Lt ovary, cul-de-sac, omentum, and small bowel: Metastatic low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Per pathologist this is a borderline tumor of the appendix.
Borderline tumors (other than brain and CNS) are not reportable to SEER. In the case of borderline tumors, the term "metastatic" does not automatically make them reportable. When the "metastatic deposits" are also borderline, the case is not reportable. For this case in particular, the "metastases" are actually (benign) implants and not malignant or invasive mets.
Reportability--Appendix: Is a pathologic final diagnosis of an appendix with "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid)" reportable? See discussion.
SINQ 20130027 states that "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix is reportable (8240/3) while "carcinoid" tumors of the appendix are not reportable (8240/1). Please explain the difference between "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" of the appendix and a "carcinoid" of the appendix.
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the appendix is reportable. The difference is terminology. "Carcinoid" is listed in ICD-O-3 as a /1 for appendix making it non-reportable.
When both terms are used, ask for clarification from the pathologist. Failing that, accept the reportable terminology and report the case.
Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER?
"Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home