MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is the histology coded for a poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype arising in a papillary carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as papillary carcinoma, poorly differentiated [8260/33].
The WHO classification lists grade III papillary carcinoma as one of the synonyms for poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Other Sites Histo rules because site specific rules have not been developed for this primary.
Start with the SINGLE TUMOR: INVASIVE ONLY module, rule H8. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Per rule H13 "phenotype" is not a term used to code a more specific histology. Moving to Rule H14 the histology is coded 8260/3 [papillary adenocarcinoma].
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS].
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for a single tumor, micropapillary carcinoma with components of mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H16 and assign code 8522 [Duct and lobular carcinoma].
Micropapillary is specific duct type (see Table 1).
Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:
1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.
2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.
3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.
EOD/Summary Stage--Eye: How is stage coded for a patient with extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma involving bilateral choroids (single focus, both sites) and no lymph node involvement? Since the eyes are a paired site, is this two separate extranodal sites? If so, there are no Summary Stage or EOD tumor codes that best fit this scenario.
Assign as Stage IV as recommended by our expert hematological oncologist. This is a rare occurrence and this type of presentation does not fit the definition of intraocular extension. Stage IV is probably the best stage for this type of presentation, since there are two extranodal organs involved, even though they involve a bilateral site.
Reportability/Behavior:
Our registry collects some borderline (behavior /1) cases that are not
reportable to SEER or any other standard setters. Can we assign a behavior code
of /2 to these cases?
Do not assign a behavior code of /2 to these cases unless you
have a way to flag them so that they are not reported to the standard setters
as in situ cases. Work with your state central registry to ensure that these cases are not unintentionally included in state case submission.
Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: What code should be used for the the following? There is no mention of LNS clinically; the patient has neoadjuvant therapy; and the LNS are matted pathologically.
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.Use the information from the pathologic evaluation to code CS Lymph nodes.
In the nodes evaluation field, assign code 6 [Regional lymph nodes removed for examination with pre-surgical systemic treatment or radiation and lymph node evaluation based on pathologic evidence]. See CS Lymph Nodes note 4.
CS Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): If a patient with cancer of the larynx is described as experiencing hoarseness, is that sufficient information to code "vocal cord fixation" or does that phrase need to be used?
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.
Do not code vocal cord fixation when the only information available is "hoarseness." Vocal cord fixation must be documented on endoscopy. Hoarseness is a common presenting symptom of laryngeal malignancy.
An official website of the United States government
Home