CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.
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.
The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.
Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.
Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.
MP/H Rules--Ovary: Rule M7 states bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) are reportable as a single primary. Are bilateral germ cell tumors of the ovary (e.g., dysgerminoma (9060/3)) that occur simultaneously now reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M7 applies to ovarian epithelial tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes between 8000 and 8799. Rule M7 does not apply to dysgerminoma which is coded to 9060. Go on to the next rule, M8 and abstract as multiple primaries, left and right.
First Course Treatment/Neoadjuvant Treatment: How is Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response (NAACCR #1633) coded if a physician documents excellent response to treatment and nothing further?
Clarify the statement of "excellent" with the managing physician if possible. If no further information can be obtained, assign code 8 in Neoadjuvant Therapy–Clinical Response and document the details in text fields.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for "serous carcinoma, papillary invasive pattern"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8441/3 [Serous carcinoma, NOS]. Use the Other Sites rules. Start with rule H8 and stop at rule H11. "Pattern" is not one of the terms used to identify a specific type (See H16), so papillary is ignored.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How is a "sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC)" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8020 [carcinoma, undifferentiated]. "Sinonasal" refers to anatomic location of primary site not histology.
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.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is histology coded for a thyroid tumor described as "predominantly papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant, follicular type"?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] according to rule H15 for Other Sites.
"Predominantly" and "type" indicate specific histologies. "Variant" does not. See rule H13. The histology in this case is papillary and follicular. Tall cell variant is ignored.
Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
CS Extension/EOD Extension--Renal Pelvis: Primary site is renal pelvis with direct extension to the rt adrenal gland. What is the correct extension code?
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.
Assign CS Extension code 67 [Adrenal gland from renal pelvis] for adrenal extension from renal pelvis -- T4 and regional direct extension.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?
For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
An official website of the United States government
Home