| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041001 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Should pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) be coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ, NOS] or 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ]? See Description. |
There is no specific morphology code for PanIN-III in the ICD-O-3. In the chapter for exocrine pancreas found in the sixth edition of AJCC cancer staging manual, pg 160, reference is made to PanIN-III and its inclusion with carcinoma in situ. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code PanIN-III (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia III) as 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ, includes DIN 3: Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 3]. PanIN-III is a synonym for carcinoma in situ according to the WHO classification of Tumors and the College of American Pathologists' Protocol for exocrine pancreas. Do not code PanIN-I or PanIN-II as cancer.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, see SINQ 20110081 and 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. |
2004 |
|
|
20041033 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion. |
Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)." | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists. 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. |
2004 |
|
|
20051003 | CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion. | 4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]? | 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. Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement. |
2005 |
|
|
20051088 | 2004 SEER Manual Errata/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: Item 9.a on page 178 is incorrect. Do not assign surgery code 98 to lymphoma, primary in lymph nodes. See Appendix C, page C-707 for Lymphoma (primary in lymph nodes) surgery codes. | Delete item 9. a. i. ii. and iii. on page 178 of the 2004 SEER Manual. This correction will be included in the next errata. | 2005 | |
|
|
20051070 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which category has priority when both apply, "Regional lymph nodes, NOS" or "Stated as N_, NOS"? See Discussion. | Example: When there is a clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis for a breast primary on a physical exam "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement", as well as a clinical N1 designation, do we code as 60 [Axillary LNS, NOS] or 26 [Stated as N1, NOS]? | 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.For the example provided, assign code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s)...] for "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement." Code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS] is the least specific and would not be used in this case because axillary nodes are defined in code 25. Code 26 is for cases in which "N1, NOS" documented by the physician is the only information available. |
2005 |
|
|
20051045 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are small isolated tumor emboli occasionally found in lymph node capsular or pericapsular lymphatics sufficient to code as a lymph node metastasis? | 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 "small isolated tumor emboli" in the pericapsular lymphatics detected by H&E that are less than 0.2 mm as 05 [Regional lymph node(s) with ITC's detected on routine H & E stains]. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051096 | Primary Site--Peritoneum: During a second look staging lap following a diagnosis of serous carcinoma of the left ovary, did the physician correctly indicate a new peritoneum, NOS primary for disease described as an endometrioid adenocarcinoma in a "paracaval cyst" that appears to have arisen in endometriosis? | The primary site is C482 [Peritoneum, NOS]. "Paracaval" means alongside or near the vena cava. Code the site in which the primary tumor originated. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051140 | CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Breast: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Discussion. | A breast cancer patient had an FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases. Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. This question is answered for EOD in SINQ 20031059. What is the answer for 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.Include all nodes examined by the pathologist in Regional lymph nodes positive and Regional lymph nodes examined, unless there is disease progression. These fields are cumulative -- record the total number of regional nodes positive and examined during first course of treatment. Preoperative treatment does not affect the coding of these fields. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 95 for number positive and 95 for number examined. For the case examples above, assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07 for both examples. |
2005 |
|
|
20051030 | CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1? | 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. Assign code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051048 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.
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. |
2005 |
Home
