EOD 2018/Primary tumor--Melanoma: The code and level translations in the Note 4 of Extent of Disease (EOD) Primary Tumor for Melanoma Skin seem incorrect. Please advise.
* Code 000: In situ
* Code 100: Level I (should be level II) (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)
* Code 200: Level II (should be level III) (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
* Code 300: Level III (should be level IV) (> 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
Please see the corrected levels below for the note. Note 4: If a Breslow's depth is given in the pathology report and there is no other indication of involvement, the following guidelines may be used (Note: If a physician documents a different Clark's Level than provided by these guidelines, go with the physician's Clark Level)
Code 000: Level I (In situ)
Code 100: Level II (< 0.75 mm Breslow's Depth)
Code 200: Level III (0.76 mm to 1.50 mm Breslow's Depth)
Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy?
Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?
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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.
Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be reportable.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Skin: How is the histology coded for "infiltrative carcinoma with ductal alterations compatible with squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma" of the skin?
Code the histology to 8413/3 [eccrine adenocarcinoma]. This is the most specific code available for this diagnosis.
According to our expert pathologist advisor, "The adnexal glands in the skin, sweat (eccrine) glands and apocrine glands, all have ducts which connect the business portion of each gland to the skin surface. Some of the adnexal tumors have features of differentiation which appear to be duct-like, hence the designation 'ductal.'"
In addition, "The 'squamoid' simply indicates some degree of squamous differentiation, but doesn't alter the usefulness of [code 8413/3] because we have no way of coding anything more specific in this case anyway."
Reportability/Histology--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth, DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2, or DFSP with focal myxoid features (2022) reportable for 2021-2022 diagnoses?
Yes. DFSP with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2 are synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). Our expert pathologist also advises that DFSP with focal myxoid features is the same as DFSP, myxoid (8832/3).
Surgical Procedure of Other Site: Is the excision of a distant lymph node or a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a distant lymph node coded as a Surgical Procedure of Other Site, even though they are performed for diagnostic purposes and not intended as treatment?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 3 [Non-primary surgical procedure to distant lymph nodes] for an excision of a distant lymph node because it is a surgical procedure. However, if only a fine needle aspirate of a distant lymph node is done, code this field to 0 [None].
Fine needle aspirates of regional lymph nodes are the only FNA biopsies to be coded in a surgery field (Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field). In addition, FNA biopsies of regional nodes are also included in the EOD-Number of Positive Regional and Examined Lymph Nodes fields.
First course of treatment/Radiation therapy--Kidney: Patient has a CT-guided biopsy of a right renal mass with procedure details under the Interventional Radiology Procedure Note stating "Gelfoam tract embolization." Is this particular embolization treatment?
Gelfoam tract embolization for a CT-guided renal biopsy is not treatment. It is a method to plug the biopsy track to reduce the risk of hemorrhage.
Reportability--Ovary: Is immature teratoma of the ovary reportable if a subsequent comment states that "the teratoma shows immature neuroepithelium, but no malignant elements"?
There is conflicting information for this case. The final diagnosis conflicts with the comment. Go back and check with the physician to clarify his/her intent. If no further information can be obtained, the final diagnosis is preferred over the comment. This case is reportable based on the final diagnosis: "immature teratoma."
An official website of the United States government
Home