| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041100 | Sequence Number-central/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): What criteria are to be used to determine which primary site carries a worse prognosis? Should we take survival into consideration? See Discussion. | In the case of two or more simultaneously diagnosed primary tumors, instructions in the SEER manual state that the tumor with the worse prognosis is to be assigned the lower sequence number. Prognosis decisions should be based on primary site, histology and extent of disease. Stage as a criteria for decision making is fairly straightforward. On the other hand, decisions based on primary site seem to be more subjective than objective. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Compare the combination of the primary site, histology and extent of disease for each primary, and assign the lowest sequence number to the primary with the worst prognosis. Do not use primary site or histology alone to determine prognosis in the case of assigning sequence number. Survival is a component of prognosis. If there is no difference in prognosis, assign the sequence numbers in any order.
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. |
N/A | Seq no-central | 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20041082 | Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion. | 4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria. Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative? |
The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement. | N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20041048 | Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when a pathologist notes the grade of a tumor is "mid-differentiated"? | Code Grade, Differentiation to 2 [Moderately differentiated]. | N/A | N/A | 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20000547 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non-small cell carcinoma, NOS"? See discussion. | Should a non-small cell carcinoma histology be assumed to be a large cell carcinoma [8031/3] or should the histology be coded to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3]? | For tumor diagnosed 2001-2006: Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma].
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. |
N/A | Histology | 2000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20041091 | Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion. | CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.
If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD? |
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided: The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes]. Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS]. Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs. A physician description of "bulky disease" would not change the EOD for this case. |
N/A | Primary site | 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20130193 | Sex: How is sex coded for a transsexual diagnosed with a testicular primary? See Discussion. | The Physical Exam states patient is male. There is a note that the patient is transsexual. There is no indication that the orchiectomy was part of gender reassignment surgery. | Code sex to 1 [male]. When the natal sex is known, code that over transsexual. | N/A | Sex | 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20031032 | 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]. |
N/A | Diagnostic confirmation | 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240020 | Histology/Behavior: There are currently no codes available on the ICD-10-CM casefinding list for several of the site-specific intraepithelial neoplasias (8077/2). Will there be an update with additional codes for these sites that currently do not have codes to enable casefinding for these? See the table below.
|
Many of these terms are not specified in the codes and definitions in ICD-10-CM. This is because ICD-10-CM does not have the same granularity as ICD-O-3.2. There are a few sites where intraepithelial neoplasia II and/or III are mentioned. Even though ICD-O-3.2 classifies these as /2 (in-situ), for the intraepithelial neoplasia that are listed in ICD-10-CM, Grade II is designated as benign, while Grade III is designated as in-situ. It is not clear if medical coding will change the Grade II to an in-situ code. All the in-situ codes (except cervix) are included in the casefinding list. Grade III is included with the in-situ codes; however, there is no guarantee that medical coders will code them as in situ. High grades are coded as in-situ in ICD-10-CM. For those where there is no specific intraepithelial neoplasia code, the benign codes will cover any benign lesion for that site. This would make for a lot of review using the codes for casefinding. Most of the benign codes were removed from the casefinding list a couple of years ago to make it more manageable. Use the casefinding list as a guide for these neoplasias. It is not the most definitive source due to the lack of specificity of ICD-10-CM. It is not possible to map every single histology to a specific code. It is also not known how medical coders across the U.S. are coding these neoplasias. For that reason, pathology should remain the foremost casefinding resource used. The casefinding team will need to review the prepared list below and determine what codes to add. Any updates will be incorporated in the FY2025 updates (October 2024.)
|
N/A | Behavior, Histology | 2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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. | N/A | Primary site | 2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20021040 | Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"? | Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source. | N/A | Other therapy | 2002 |
Home
