EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion.
For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.
2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).
3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, "B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... " Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.
Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.
For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)
Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.
If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion.
A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.
If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.
Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].
Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
An official website of the United States government
Home