Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031153 | Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. | Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.
Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031171 | Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description. | In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant? Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered. |
Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable. The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report. |
2003 |
|
|
20031085 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What are the correct site and histology codes for "tubal serous adenocarcinoma" identified in a fallopian tube? See Description. | The pathology report of a laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy states: 1.5 cm intraluminal mass left fallopian tube: micro: tubal serous adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, infiltrates the muscular wall of the fallopian tube; serosa does not appear to be penetrated. The left ovary is negative for malignancy. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma]. The primary site for this case is fallopian tube, not the suggested site code of ovary.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031031 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?" |
Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia. Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary. Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031185 | Primary Site: How is this field coded for a mass involving the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus? See Description. | We have an EGD report describing an ulcerated and infiltrative circumferential non-bleeding 10 cm. mass of malignant appearance found at the gastro-esophageal junction and lower third of the esophagus. The mass caused a partial obstruction. Biopsies were taken from the the gastroesophageal junction and lower third of esophagus. Pathologic diagnosis: Adenocarcinoma. Would this be coded C26.8? | Search for a statement indicating the site of origin. If the site of origin cannot be determined, and there is evidence of Barrett's esophagus, code the topography in the example above to C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus]. If there is no evidence of Barrett's esophagus, assign code C16.0 [Gastroesophageal junction]. Either C15.5 or C16.0 would be preferable to C26.8, which is very non-specific and includes GI tract, pancreas and biliary tract. | 2003 |
|
|
20031133 | First Course Treatment--Thyroid: Is hormone replacement following total thyroidectomy coded as first course treatment for all thyroid cases? | Code Hormone therapy as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] when thyroid replacement therapy is part of the first course of treatment for follicular or papillary thyroid cancer following thyroidectomy. Thyroid hormone replacement therapy has a treatment effect on differentiated (follicular and papillary) carcinomas of the thyroid. This treatment effect is not seen for most medullary and undifferentiated thyroid cancers. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031015 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion. | A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region]. The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative. |
2003 |
|
|
20031102 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology "Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, "Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation."
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031160 | EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?" | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
