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.
Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when there is a marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma [9699/3] diagnosed in 2000, and the clinician states that the diffuse large B-Cell type lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2004 was a transformation of the prior primary? See Discussion.
The Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates they are most likely "D" different disease processes. As any low grade lymphoma can transform, we suspect this represents a transformation (the clinician is regarding this as transformed).
How many primary/ies should be coded?
And, how?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Report this case as one primary according to the physician's opinion. Code the histology as 9699/3 [marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma, NOS] and code the date of diagnosis as 2000.
Code the physicians opinion regardless of whether or not it agrees with the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table. Use the table when the physician does not state whether or not there is a new primary.
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 is the difference between code 8244/3 composite carcinoid (combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma) and 8245/3 adenocarcinoid tumor?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when there is a combination of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor.
Assign code 8245/3 [adenocarcinoid] when the diagnosis is exactly "adenocarcinoid."
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 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.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: How are "malignant cells" in a cytology or "probably malignancy" in a CT scan coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8001/3 [Tumor cells, malignant] when the only information available is a cytology report stating "malignant cells."
Assign code 8000/3 [Neoplasm, malignant] when then only information available is a CT report stating "probable malignancy."
See ICD-O-3 page 27 for an explanation of "cancer" [8000] and "carcinoma" [8010].
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.
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.
Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out?
Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/
SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx:
alemtuzumab/Campath
bexarotene/Targretin
bevacizumab/Avastin
bortezomib/Velcade
pegaspargase/Oncaspar
rituximab/Rituxan
trastuzumab/Herceptin
asparaginase
The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx:
epratuzumab/LymphoCide
ibrituzumab
tiuxetan/Zevalin
tositumomab/Bexxar
Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy.
There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy.
Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are "lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion" and "Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat" reportable?
Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home