EOD-Extension--Colon: How should this field be coded for "adenocarcinoma penetrating through bowel wall into adjacent adipose tissue?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The difference between EOD-extension codes 40 and 45 is the level of the fat involved. Code 40 is subserosal fat immediately adjacent to the muscular wall of the colon inside the serosa/visceral peritoneum. Code 45 is pericolic fat in areas where there is a serosal surface or in the retroperitoneal areas of the ascending and descending colon where there is no serosa. Code 42 was added for use when it is not possible to determine whether subserosal fat or pericolic fat is involved. Code 42 should be used only when there is a reference to 'fat' (NOS) The answer for the case example above depends on the location of the primary and whether the fat referred to is within or outside the entire thickness of the colon wall. If no additional information is available, use code 42 [Fat, NOS].
Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description.
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only].
In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension.
Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion.
Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved?
Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under "Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery."
It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated] for cases diagnosed in 2003 or later?
For prostate cases diagnosed in 2003 and forward: convert Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated].
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive "neck nodes" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the "neck" are distant, rather than regional, for lung.
EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description.
Examples:
1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.
2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.
Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement.
Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is a core-out of the main bronchus coded in this field? See Description.
Patient with right lung cancer was not a surgical candidate because of extent of disease. Prior to receiving radiation, patient underwent bronchoscopy, which revealed obstruction from right main bronchial tumor. Core-out of the tumor was undertaken, and a specimen was sent for path evaluation. The physician stated that this was a palliative procedure to relieve obstruction.
Do not code bronchoscopy to clear the airway as surgery of primary site. When combined with laser therapy, cryosurgery, or other tumor destruction, or when combined with excision of tumor, code as surgery of primary site.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code surgery of primary site for the case described above to 23 [Excision, NOS]. Tissue was excised and sent to pathology.
Laterality--Head & Neck: Does the site code C098 need a laterality code? See Description.
In the SEER EOD-88 3rd edition, page 36, site code C098 does not need laterality. In the SEER Program code manual, 3rd edition, page 93, site code C098 is listed as a site that needs a laterality code 1-9.
Topography code C098 [Overlapping lesion of tonsil] requires a laterality code of 1-9. Follow the laterality guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual.
Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description.
Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia.
Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment.
Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis.
When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case.
Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia.
Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
An official website of the United States government
Home