Reportability/In Situ--Prostate: Was there a time period when PIN III was reportable to SEER?
Per the 2004 SEER Manual, page 2, Reportable Diagnoses, Exceptions, 1.b.iii "Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) of the prostate (C619). (Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 and later.)"
Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL?
Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma.
Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan.
CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate primaries?
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.Do not use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.
The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that "After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging."
August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a case of astrogliosis meet the criteria for gliomatosis cerebri? See Discussion.
Case clinically stated to be a glioma of the brain. Pathology from resection states astrogliosis.
Anderson's Pathology defines astrogliosis as astrocytic proliferations. Gliomatosis cerebri is defined as diffuse neoplastic transformation of poorly differentiated astrocytes over a wide area; predominantly invovles hemispheric white matter.
The pathologic diagnosis for this case, astrogliosis, is not reportable to SEER. Take the definitive diagnosis for this case from the pathology report from the resection. The pathology report takes precendence over the clinical diagnosis.
CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score be taken from a TNM form in the record? If so, what score would we code for "low" (0-1 points) and "high" (4-5 points)?
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.Yes, the IPI score from the TNM form can be used to code SSF 3. Without further information, code "low" as 000 [0 points]. Code "high" as 004 [4 points].
CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion.
For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present.
Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression.
Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression.
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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above.
According to our pathologist consultant:
Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma.
The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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.
CS Extension--Cervix: How are "positive pelvic washings" coded for a cervical primary?
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.
According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri.
CS Lymph Nodes: Are lymphatic channels/vessels within an organ coded as regional lymph nodes?
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.Lymphatic channels/vessels carry lymph fluid throughout the organs and tissues of the body. Lymph channels/vessels within an organ are not nodes. Lymph channels/vessels outside an organ are not nodes.
CS Lymph Nodes/Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Prostate: When prostate cancer is an incidental finding at cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer, is the pelvic lymph node dissection coded for the prostate as well as the bladder?
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.
Yes, the pelvic lymph node dissection is coded as regional lymph node surgery for both primaries and the nodes are counted in collaborative staging for both primaries. The examination of the pelvic lymph nodes is relevant to both the bladder and the prostatic primaries.
An official website of the United States government
Home