Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are "atypical melanocytic hyperplasia" and "severe melanotic dysplasia" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or 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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When a breast cancer is treated with less than a total mastectomy and more than 2 months later a tumor of the same histology is diagnosed in the same breast with no statement of "recurrence," is this a new primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Count as 2 primaries when a subsequent malignant breast tumor is diagnosed more than 2 months later unless stated to be a recurrence. For cases diagnosed after 1/1/94, an in situ followed by an invasive breast cancer is counted as two primaries even if stated to be a recurrence.
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.
Place of Birth: When there is conflicting information, which record takes precedence in coding this field, the medical record or the death certificate?
If there is a discrepancy, use the information from the medical record to code the Place of Birth field. The information from the medical record is provided by the patient, the information on the death certificate is provided by others. If the medical record does not contain birth information, use the information from the death certificate.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp"? See discussion.
Is "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8261/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma]. In describing colon polyps, papillary and villous are equivalent terms.
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.
Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?
Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.
Radiation: Is "consolidated" radiation therapy coded as part of first course therapy when there is no documentation of "planned treatment" and the radiation is done 4 months after the initiation of treatment?
Yes, "consolidation" treatment is part of a planned treatment regimen. A treatment regimen may consist of the four following phases:
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are "perivesical nodules" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code "perivesical nodules" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.
An official website of the United States government
Home