Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051015 | Priorities/CS Tumor Size--Breast: What is the priority order used in coding tumor size for this site when there is a larger 2 cm lesion noted on the PET scan and smaller sizes described in the pathology report as two malignant masses one measuring 0.8 cm and the second measuring 1.0 cm per the GROSS? | 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 CS Tumor Size as 1.0 cm. The pathology report is the highest priority source for coding tumor size. When multiple tumors are present, code the size of the largest tumor. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051017 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Is it better to code to 26 [Stated as N1, NOS] or 28 [Stated as N2, NOS] instead of 60 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS; Lymph nodes, NOS] when the only information in the medical record is the TNM N1 or N2 physician 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. Yes. When the only indication of lymph node involvement is the physician's N category from TNM, code the numerically lowest equivalent CS Lymph Nodes code for that N category. In the breast schema, CS Lymph Nodes code 26 corresponds to N1, NOS and code 28 corresponds to N2, NOS. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051080 | Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion. | CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging? | 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. There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension. |
2005 |
|
|
20051116 | Primary Site--Soft Tissue: How is the primary site coded for a PNET found in the groin when the Tumor Board states the primary is unknown but the SEER site/histology validation table does not allow a site of C809 or C76x to be coded in combination with the histology of 9473/3? | Code site to C495 [connective tissue of pelvis, groin]. This was not called metastatic PNET and no other site of disease is noted. PNET is a broad classification of a group of tumors that usually occur in the CNS and can also occur in soft tissue (neuroblastoma, extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma). |
2005 | |
|
|
20051103 | 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20051046 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia." Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression". Example 2: Hematopathology is negative. Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion." |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone. Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case. 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20051026 | Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: What surgery code is used to reflect the amputation of a finger for subungual melanoma? | 47 [Wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins greater than 2cm] is the correct surgery code for amputation of a finger for melanoma. | 2005 | |
|
|
20051078 | Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If the surgical margins are greater than 1 cm for length and width but less than 1 cm for depth, do we code surgery in the 30-33 range? | Yes, assign a surgery code from the 30-33 range when any margin is less than 1 cm. Since tumor thickness is an important prognostic factor for cutaneous melanoma, the deep margin is of particular importance. | 2005 | |
|
|
20051112 | Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion. | On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology. | 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.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.
The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines. |
2005 |
|
|
20051066 | CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Explain the difference among SSF4 prostate codes 150 [No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown], 510 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension], and 550 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown]. |
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.Site Specific Factor 4 captures the status of clinical apex involvement and prostatectomy apex involvement. The first digit in codes 110-550 indicates the clinical status of apex involvement. The second digit indicates apex involvement found at prostatectomy. The third digit is always zero. For both first and second digits, the codes and definitions are the same: 1 - No involvement of prostatic apex 2 - Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS 3 - Arising into prostatic apex 4 - Extension into prostatic apex 5 - Apex extension unknown Code 150 = No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown Code 510 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension Code 550 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
