Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tonsil primary diagnosed on 4/16/07 by a regional lymph node FNA when the patient subsequently initiates radiation on 5/8/07 and has a tonsillectomy with neck dissection on 7/30/07?
The best way to handle this situation is to assign code 2 [Radiation before surgery] in Radiation Sequence with Surgery. Code 2 provides the best description of the sequence of events in this case. Radiation was delivered prior to the resection of the primary site.
MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded in a patient with a 4/5/08 left thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of follicular carcinoma followed by a 7/25/08 right thyroid lobectomy diagnosis of papillary carcinoma, follicular variant?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M17 under Other Sites applies. These are separate primaries based on their ICD-O-3 histology codes. Follicular carcinoma is coded 8330. Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant is coded 8340. The histology codes are different at the third number. Rule M6 does not apply because these diagnoses are more than 60 days apart.
CS Extension--Pancreas: How do you code this field for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of portal and splenic veins? See Discussion.
The splenic artery/vein is only mentioned in the body and tail scheme; no mention is made of this site in the pancreatic head scheme.
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 CS extension code 54 [major blood vessels]. The portal vein is listed under code 54 for head of pancreas. The splenic vein branches from the portal vein.
Grade: Can FIGO grade be used to code Grade/Differentiation? See Discussion.
SINQ 20020059 says not to use FIGO grade to code differentiation. It also says SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 sixth digit differentiation codes accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade. What is the result of the evaluation? Any new information regarding FIGO grade?
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 code FIGO grade in the grade field. The conversion from a three-grade system to a four-grade system does not work for FIGO grade three. Since FIGO G3 includes both Poorly differentiated and undifferentiated, it cannot be converted.
FIGO grade may be captured in a CS site specific factor in the future.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion.
How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma.
Reportability--Skin: Is a "basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation" reportable?
The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.
According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.
CS Mets at DX/CS Extension--Ovary: Is carcinomatosis always captured in the CS Mets field? Can the term carcinomatosis be used to describe peritoneal implants as well? See Discussion.
1/18/06 CT guided biopsy of abdominal mass & ant peritoneum nodule: Extensive carcinomatosis affecting the paracolic gutters, liver surface & pelvis. 6 cm tumor mass was visibly engulfing the small bowel & tube; poorly differentiated adenoca, mullerian derived, shows attributes of clear cell carcinoma, high grade (FIGO III), 2.5 cm size, does not involve fallopian tube. R&L abdominal wall & mesentery, mets adenoca.
5/31/06: tumor debulking with right salpingo-oophorectomy. Final DX: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, clear cell type, right ovary (FIGO III), stage IV per MD.
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.In the case of ovarian cancer, the term carcinomatosis may refer to peritoneal implants, especially when the implants are numerous. It does not refer to distant metastases in this context.
This issue has been forwarded to the CS version 2 committee.
Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.
Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?
Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.
Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.
Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.
Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.
Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field.
Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion.
For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians?
1) Patient is Czechoslovakian
2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia
3) Patient is Ethiopian
4) Patient is born in Ethiopia
5) Patient is Japanese
6) Patient is born in Japan
7) Patient is Brazilian
8) Patient is born in Brazil
Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate?
Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance.
Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields.
Reportability--Kidney: Is the donor or the recipient the reportable patient when a cyst removed from a pre-transplanted kidney is determined to be cancerous? See Discussion.
A patient received a kidney from her son. The son's kidney had a cyst which was removed prior to the transplant and later determined to be renal cell ca. Who do we report, the donor or the recipient?
The renal cell carcinoma should be reported for the donor. The cyst that was determined to be carcinoma was removed before the kidney was transplanted.
An official website of the United States government
Home