Place of Birth: When there is conflicting information, which record takes precedence in coding this field, the medical record or the death certificate?
If there is a discrepancy, use the information from the medical record to code the Place of Birth field. The information from the medical record is provided by the patient, the information on the death certificate is provided by others. If the medical record does not contain birth information, use the information from the death certificate.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
Primary Site: What code should be used to represent the site for an "extraovarian" papillary serous adenocarcinoma located in the "rectal muscle sheath"? See discussion.
The location of the tumor in the rectus muscle sheath is unusual and suggests an origin within a preexisting mullerian.
Code the Primary Site field to C49.4 [connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of the abdomen].
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are "perivesical nodules" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code "perivesical nodules" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.
Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of "long-standing pneumonia," is that synonymous with "pneumonitis" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
EOD-Extension--Cervix: Should this field be coded to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] or 12 [microinvasion] when there is only a statement of "microinvasion" but no measurements describing the level of involvement given?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [microinvasion] when there are no depth of invasion measurements given.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] when there is a statement of "minimal STROMAL invasion."
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp"? See discussion.
Is "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8261/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma]. In describing colon polyps, papillary and villous are equivalent terms.
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.
EOD-Extension--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with "spread to the omentum"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described.
An official website of the United States government
Home