Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031202 | Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a surgery titled "Parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection"? See Description. | If the operative report is not titled "total parotidectomy," can we assume that less than total parotidectomy was done? Can we assume that "facial nerve dissection" and "facial nerve monitoring" are other ways of stating "facial nerve spared"? | Use the best information available to determine whether or not all of the parotid has been removed. It is important to read the entire operative report and review the content of the pathology report. The Op report will usually include wording about how much was removed, and this can be confirmed by the path report. Do not make assumptions about the extent of the surgery based solely on the title used on the operative report.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code 30 [less than total parotidectomy] can be used when the parotid is not totally removed, but the exact type of partial parotidectomy cannot be determined. "Facial nerve monitoring" and "Facial nerve dissection" are synonymous with "facial nerve sparing." |
2003 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20200011 | Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion. |
Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not. In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)? |
Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data. We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update. |
2020 |
|
|
20130216 | Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Need help determining primary site for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma 9680/3 confirmed pathologically in right ovary and soft tissue left adnexa. No lymph nodes examined pathologically. Patient treated outside and no access to notes. See discussion. |
CT A/P massively enlarged uterus with no distention between the vagina, cervix or proximal to mid uterus identified. Highly concerning for malignancy though distinct etiology not clear. Ovarian not favored though not excluded given lack of clearly defined fat planes between uterus and either ovary. Extensive bilateral iliac chain and periaortic/pericaval lymphadenopathy.
Trying to work through Module 7 in the Hem DB. According to the ovary site, regional lymph nodes include the iliac and the para-aortic lymph nodes. This makes me think I should use Rule PH35 (organ and regional nodes). However, using Appendix C in the Hem DB, the iliac lymph nodes are part of the pelvic C775 while the para-aortic (periaortic) are intra-abdominal C772. This makes me wonder if I should go with rule PH36 present in organ and nodes that are not regional. |
Use Rule PH25 and code primary site to C569.
First determine if the iliac and para-aortic lymph nodes are regional for Ovary. Use AJCC TNM or Collaborative Stage. Per AJCC 7th edition, regional lymph nodes for ovary include iliac and para-aortic (pg. 419). Therefore, this case involves an organ and its regional lymph nodes. Use appendix C to determine how to code a lymph node primary. It should not be used to determine whether lymph nodes are regional for a specific organ. |
2013 |
|
|
20130100 | Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are there and how should I code the primary site(s)? See discussion. |
Patient had a hemicolectomy and a salpingo-oophorectomy and was found to have diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the colon (10 cm cecal mass), 3/16 regional lymph nodes involved with lymphoma. Fallopian tube showed involvement with diffuse large B Cell lymphoma.
Multiple primaries - Colon and fallopian tube?
One primary - Colon? Stage IV, or lymphoma from an unknown primary? Note: There were no other lymph nodes involved. |
Use Rule M2. Abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.
When you have questions about how to code the primary site, start with the abstractor notes. If the answer isn't found there go to Module 7 (a specific module to help code primary site for lymphomas).
The abstractor notes for DLBCL in this case do not provide information you can use for this case. Go to Module 7 in the PH rules.
Use Rule PH25 Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present in an organ and that organ’s regional lymph nodes. Code the primary site to colon (organ and regional lymph nodes involved). The fallopian tube is secondary involvement. As is common with lymphomas, there can be more than one organ involved. You can differentiate the primary site from the secondary site(s) because of the large colon mass with regional lymph node involvement. |
2013 |
|
|
20200048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right lower lobe invasive acinar adenocarcinoma (8551/3) in 2018 and treated with lobectomy, followed by a 2019 right middle lobe cancer (NOS, 8000/3) diagnosed as new stage 1 primary by cancer conference? See Discussion. |
Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes. |
Use M14 and code a single primary. Per our SME, carcinoma or cancer, NOS is not an acceptable diagnosis which is why 8000 and 8010 were not included in the tables or rules. We assume there was no tissue diagnosis for the 2019 diagnosis. We recommend searching for more information or better documentation on this case. |
2020 |
|
|
20140066 | First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor? |
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants. |
2014 | |
|
|
20240054 | EOD 2018/Primary Tumor--Breast: We are having difficulty deciding when we can or cannot use physician-assigned TNM staging to code EOD data items if the medical record or hospital abstract documentation is unclear. As a central registry, we are unable to query physicians for clarification. Please advise what is a “discrepancy” in the EOD General Instructions to “Use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record.” See Discussion. |
We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines? A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes? |
Use all information available in the medical record. EOD is a combination of the most precise clinical and pathological documentation of the extent of disease as instructed in the EOD 2018 General Instructions, Extent of Disease section. EOD 2018 General Instructions, General Coding Instructions section advises to use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record. When there is doubt that the documentation in the medical record is complete, code the EOD corresponding to the physician staging. A discrepancy can exist within the medical record when the information in the chart is unclear, incomplete, or conflicting, for example, the TNM staging from pathology differs from the medical oncologist’s TNM staging. In the scenario provided, use the medical oncologist stage information that takes into account imaging and exam findings. Based on the stage cT4 N3b, assign EOD Primary Tumor: 400 Extensive skin involvement WITHOUT a stated diagnosis of inflammatory carcinoma WITH or WITHOUT dermal lymphatic filtration EOD Regional Nodes: 600 Internal mammary node(s), ipsilateral, clinically apparent (On imaging or clinical exam) WITH axillary (level I, II, or III) lymph node(s), ipsilateral including infraclavicular |
2024 |
|
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
2012 | |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology. |
2018 |
An official website of the United States government
