| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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. |
2011 |
|
|
20230003 | SEER Manual/Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Please clarify the reportability and relevant date ranges of the following ambiguous terminology: almost certainly, most certainly, and malignant until proven otherwise. See Discussion. |
SINQ 20180104 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “almost certainly” and “until proven otherwise” are NOT reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SINQ 20200027 indicates, in the absence of further info, the term “most certainly” IS reportable. There is no date range provided for this answer. SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2022 indicates, in the absence of further info, the terms “until proven otherwise” and “most certainly” ARE reportable. Essentially, we are hoping for an update of SINQ 20180104 due to 2022 reportability change. Clarification to the equivalence of “almost certainly” and “most certainly” would also be helpful. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a guide in the absence of additional information after reviewing all available information and consulting the physician who diagnosed and/or staged the tumor. Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
Not Equivalent to "Diagnostic for" malignancy or reportable diagnosis
We will update SINQ 20180104. |
2023 |
|
|
20051120 | CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. | 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...]. Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case. |
2005 |
|
|
20051119 | CS Eval--Colon: When the surgical resection occurs after radiation or chemo, how is the tumor size/extension evaluation field coded when there is no mention of the tumor size or extension in the surgical resection pathology report? See Discussion. | 6/30/04 CT Scan abd/pelvis: 7.5x7.2 cm large rectal mass with l cm nodular densities in perirectal region probably adenopathy; irregularity of perirectal soft tissue which could be due to tumor infiltration. 7/26/04 Patient has radiation therapy and 5FU. 10/19/04 LAR: MD Adenoca rectum with regional node mets (3/8). | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Based on the information provided above, code CS Tumor Size and Extension from CT scan. Code CS TS/Ext eval 5 [Surgical resection performed with pre-surgical treatment...size based on clinical evidence]. Code CS lymph nodes using information from resection. Code CS Reg Nodes eval 6 [Regional LN removed...with pre-surgical treatment...based on pathologic evidence]. |
2005 |
|
|
20051118 | CS Tumor Size--Rectum: Should the tumor size be coded to 080 from the colonoscopy size or 075 from the CT scan size? See Discussion. | 6/29/04 Colonoscopy with biopsy: near obstructing circumferential friable mass extending from 8 to 16cm above anal verge. 6/30/04 CT Scan Abdomen/Pelvis: 7.5X7.2cm large rectal mass. The patient had radiation with concurrent 5-FU. Surgery is done after treatment. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Code tumor size as 080 (8cm). Code the largest pretreatment size recorded when there is preoperative systemic treatment. |
2005 |
|
|
20061002 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion. | 5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is one primary. Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.
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. |
2006 |
|
|
20051003 | CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion. | 4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement. |
2005 |
|
|
20051002 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: How are these fields coded for a tumor stated to have only in situ disease in the breast with bone metastasis identified on scan? See Discussion. | 4/20/04 Quadrantectomy: "Tumor involves a significant portion of the biopsy and is estimated at 10 cm in greatest dimension." The only other mention of size is from imaging studies which is 3.5 cm. The histology is "high grade ductal carcinoma with comedo necrosis. No invasive carcinoma identified." Bone scan on 4/20/04 shows "widespread metastatic disease to bone." By rule the behavior code for this case is changed to malignant. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Code tumor size as 100 [10 cm]. Size from pathology or operative report is preferred over size from imaging.
Code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and proportions of in situ and invasive not known.]
There is invasive tumor present (as proven by the bone metastasis), but the size and proportion of the invasive component is unknown.
Please note: Extension must be coded at least to 10 [Confined to the breast tissue and fat including nipple and areola; Localized, NOS] in this case. Do not assign extension code 00 [in situ]. |
2005 |
|
|
20130089 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is the histology coded when a pre-treatment core biopsy showed ductal carcinoma, but the mastectomy specimen following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed lobular carcinoma? See Discussion. | 11/06/2012 Ultrasound-guided biopsy of the left breast and left axilla showed invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient underwent 6 months of chemotherapy. In 05/2013 the patient underwent a mastectomy that showed invasive lobular cancer, pleomorphic type, with 11 axillary lymph nodes negative. | The histology is coded to lobular carcinoma, NOS [8520/3] because the mastectomy (the most representative specimen) showed only lobular carcinoma.
The MP/H Rules state to code the histology from the most representative tumor specimen examined. Although this patient underwent neoadjuvant treatment, there is no indication that the ultrasound-guided biopsy contained more tumor than the mastectomy. The mastectomy is the most representative specimen and should be used to code the histology.
|
2013 |
|
|
20031040 | First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy/Immunotherapy--Thyroid: For this primary, do we code I-131 as a Radio-isotope as well as a Biological Response Modifier? See Description. | (SEER Book 8 lists I-131 as a Biological Response Modifier.) Immunoglobulin is listed as immunotherapy agent in the CCR manual also coded as immunotherapy. Are there two different types of I-131, immunoglobulin and sodium iodide? | Code Radioactive Iodine, Sodium Iodide 131-I, as radiation (code 3, Radioisotopes). Sodium Iodide is listed as an ancillary drug in SEER Book 8, page 45. The listing on page 63 refers to Antiferritin antibody, or AntiCEA. Both of these were under clinical investigation when Book 8 was written. They are no longer active and this change will be made when Book 8 is revised. |
2003 |
Home
