Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021030 | Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. | Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. | The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. | 2002 |
|
|
20021179 | Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021152 | Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved? | Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.
Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare). |
2002 | |
|
|
20021055 | EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion. | 1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?
2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.
2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated. |
2002 |
|
|
20021176 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals "infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with "invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.
Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple primaries.
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20020066 | Chemotherapy: How is treatment with Iressa (Gefitinib) coded? | Code treatment with Iressa as chemotherapy. Iressa is an epidermal growth factor inhibitor. While it doesn't kill cells directly, it damages the cell reproduction process. We classify it as a chemotherapy agent. |
2002 | |
|
|
20020020 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When two breast tumors with two different histologies, such as duct and mucinous are diagnosed in the same breast at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. |
Our rule is that multiple lesions of different histologic types are separate primaries. However, for separate tumors of duct and lobular, we report as a single primary. Since we now have a combination code for duct and other types of ca, do we report as a single primary or continue to report as separate primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: When there are two breast tumors, one mucinous, the other duct carcinoma, report as two primaries when the pathologist's opinion clearly states that there are separate primaries. If there is no such information from the pathologist, the two tumors must be separate with clear (negative) margins to be reported as two primaries. Otherwise, report as one primary. The ICD-O-3 combination codes are not intended to combine tumors of different histologic types. 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021162 | Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion. |
Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients. |
Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields. |
2002 |
|
|
20021151 | Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion. |
Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant." |
The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable. |
2002 |
|
|
20021052 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? 1) Stricture of the common bile duct 2) Common bile duct is narrowed 3) Common bile duct is obstructed 4) Common bile duct dilation 5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct 6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
