Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021210 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When there is a delay between the clinical diagnosis of a malignancy and the surgical resection of the primary site, can the resection be used to code the date of diagnosis, extension, size of the primary tumor, and histology? See discussion. | For example, mammogram March 28th states "certainly represents malignancy." Nothing else done until November 1st when pt presents w/skin retraction on PE and bone mets. A mastectomy November 6th shows "ductal ca w/dermal lymphatic invasion and tumor measuring 3.5 cm."
How is the date of diagnosis, extension, tumor size & histology coded for this case? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Date of Diagnosis to March. Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Histology can be upgraded from a clinical histology to a pathological histology anytime.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in coding extension, you need to assess whether there has been progression of disease or not. If progression of disease is verified, do not code extension using the surgical information from November. Code the extension and tumor size based on the mammogram and physical examination at the time of the mammogram, if available.
If no progression of disease is verified, use surgical information to code extension and tumor size.
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. |
Breast | Date of diagnosis, Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20110009 | Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion. |
2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?
|
The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].
As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation | 2011 |
|
|
20031182 | Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description. | A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD. | Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002. | N/A | Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation | 2003 |
|
|
20150027 | Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)? |
Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis, Diagnostic confirmation | 2015 |
|
|
20051107 | Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL? | Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma. Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan. |
Lymphoma | Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy | 2005 | |
|
|
20021181 | Radiation/Chemotherapy: How do we code radiation and chemotherapy when the only statement we have is that the patient is "referred to either an oncologist or a radiation therapist"? | For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A referral does not mean that the radiation therapy or chemotherapy was actually recommended. These cases need follow-back to see if treatment was recommended and/or administered. Some registries code these cases as 8 [Radiation recommended, unknown if administered] or 88 [Chemotherapy recommended, unknown if it was administered] and routinely review all cases with 8 or 88 codes. Upon review, the codes are updated depending on the information found. If there is no information available, the code 8 or 88 is changed to 0 or 00 [None]. | N/A | Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy | 2002 | |
|
|
20051095 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: How do we code Rituxan for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Herceptin for breast cancer? See Discussion. | Page 195 of the SEER Manual 2004 lists these as examples of Immunotherapy. The new SEER*Rx categorizes these as chemotherapy. (Sinq # 20041025 says to code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy, too.) |
Code Rituxan and Herceptin as chemotherapy. SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. Be sure to use SEER*Rx [http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/] because some agents changed categories when SEER*Rx was deployed. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded. |
N/A | Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy | 2005 |
|
|
20051111 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out? | Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/ SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx: alemtuzumab/Campath bexarotene/Targretin bevacizumab/Avastin bortezomib/Velcade pegaspargase/Oncaspar rituximab/Rituxan trastuzumab/Herceptin asparaginase The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx: epratuzumab/LymphoCide ibrituzumab tiuxetan/Zevalin tositumomab/Bexxar Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy. There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy. |
N/A | Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy | 2005 | |
|
|
20230018 | SEER Manual/First Course Treatment--Chemotherapy: Does the First Course of Treatment end when subcategories change for treatments such as hormone therapy or immunotherapy or is that instruction specific to chemotherapy? See Discussion. |
Treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer started with tamoxifen (non-steroidal estrogen subcategory) and switched to letrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor subcategory). Patient being treated with immunotherapy, Avastin (cytostatic agent-antiangiogenesis agent subcategory), and then changed to Atezolizumab (monoclonal antibody subcategory). Is Atezolizumab a new course of therapy because it is a different subcategory? |
Answer updated April 2025 A change in the subcategory for a hormone drug does not indicate the end of First Course of Treatment because different hormone therapies generally achieve the same result. For example, some forms of breast cancer are estrogen-dependent and the various subcategories of hormone drugs used to treat them, such as gonadotropin-releasing factor agonists, aromatase inhibitors and estrogen antagonists, all achieve the same result - to block estradiol effects in these tumors. Similarly, a change in immunotherapy is not a new course of treatment. However, if a change to hormone therapy or immunotherapy is due to a change in the patient's ER, PR, or Her2 status, this could signify a new course of treatment. The instruction in the SEER Manual is specific to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is the only systemic treatment for which a change in the subcategory of a drug indicates the end of First Course of Treatment, due to the fact that different chemical agents damage cancer cells in different ways and at different phases in the cell cycle. |
N/A | Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy | 2023 |
|
|
20061054 | First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy: Is adriamycin used in a chemoembolization procedure coded as chemotherapy? | Code as chemotherapy only when a chemotherapeutic agent is used, such as adriamycin. Do not automatically code chemoembolization as chemotherapy. | N/A | Chemotherapy, First course treatment | 2006 |
An official website of the United States government
