Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term "plasma cell dyscrasia" a synonym for multiple myeloma?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-3.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent the histology "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma" and "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous glandular polyp"? See discussion.
Should histology be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] or 8261/3[adenocarcinoma arising a villous adenoma] or 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villoglandular adenoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule D in the Coding Complex Morphology Diagnoses: "Code the morphology with the highest code."
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features"? See discussion.
Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should "sarcomatoid" be interpreted as sarcoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in coding histology.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion.
The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4.
Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.
Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
All Surgical Fields/Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Unknown Primaries: What codes are used to represent these fields for an unknown primary treated with a radical neck dissection followed by radiation therapy?
For unknown primaries treated with a lymph node dissection and diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:
1) Surgery to Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment].
2) Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: 9 [Unknown or not applicable].
3) Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 1 [Surgery to other site(s) or node(s), NOS; unknown if regional or distant].
4) Radiation Sequence with Surgery: 3 [Radiation after surgery]. Any planned surgical treatment is used to code radiation/surgery sequence (per CoC I&R).
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion.
If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion.
Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.
For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.
An official website of the United States government
Home