System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/24/2024 21:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010104 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion. Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.

 2001
20031007 EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion. Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized. 2003
20081085 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Per MP/H rule H3 for colon, code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type] should not be used with C180-C189 [colon]. However, page 58 of the ICD-O-3 SEER Site/Histology Validation list of February 9, 2001 lists code 8144/3 as a valid histology for large intestine. See Discussion. None of the errata have this site/histo combination. It is causing problems with researchers because pathologists still use the term: Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type for tumors of the large bowel. Please clarify or print errata.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This issue has been presented to the Edits work group. The preliminary response is that 8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum.

The edits based on the site/type list are used by many organizations. Any change to the site/type list is taken to the Edits work group.

 2008
20021157 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology for a lung biopsy of "non-small cell carcinoma with features of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma"? See discussion. Non-small cell carcinoma does not appear to be an NOS term in ICD-O-3. The term "with features of" indicates a majority of tumor. Which rule should be used to code histology?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology and the Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/33 [adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated].

The term "non-small cell carcinoma" is used to represent a broad category of epithelial cancers. Non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] is grouped in the ICD-O-3 under "Epithelial Neoplasms, NOS." The term can be used by a pathologist when he rules out the fact that the patient has a small cell cancer by stating that the malignancy is a non-small cell type of cancer. In this case, the type of non-small cell cancer present in the specimen is adenocarcinoma.

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.

 2002
20031196 EOD-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description. Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. 2003
20120025 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma to the brain in 2003 and subsequently was diagnosed with meningeal melanomatosis? See Discussion. Meningeal melanomatosis has a separate ICD-O-3 code, but is also a very rare form of melanoma.

This is a single primary coded to the site of the original melanoma. The brain and meninges are both metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.

This case was sent to the melanoma physician specialists. The physician stated that, in this case, the meningeal involvement is secondary to the brain involvement (metastatic spread). Whenever brain metastases are diagnosed, the meningeal spread is metastatic.

2012
20130015 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is essential thrombocytopenia reportable? See Discussion. Many times essential thrombocytopenia has been coded based on blood counts. Sometimes the discharge summary states thrombocytosis (NOS), and the case is coded to essential thrombocytopenia. Are these cases reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

The following are not alternative names for any reportable disease process:

  • Essential thrombocytopenia

  • Reactive thrombocytosis

  • Thrombocythemia

  • Thrombocytopenia

  • Thrombocytosis

    • The diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia is based on blood counts, but is usually a diagnosis made by excluding other myelodysplastic disorders. The following are reportable disease processes:

    • Essential thrombocythemia (9962/3)

  • Essential thrombocytosis (9962/3)

  • Refractory thrombocytopenia (9992/3)

    • 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.

    		2013
    		20000422 Surgery of Primary Site: Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? See discussion. Many surgeons are doing exploratory surgery with laparoscopy involving a very small incision, but they can examine organs and take biopsies. Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? For cases diagnosed 1/1/1998 and later: Exploratory surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic surgeries, are not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field. 2000
    		20071009 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion. MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities. 2007
    		20061018 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion. MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.

    However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.

    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