Code the histology to 9950/3 [polycythemia vera], the more specific histology, per Rule PH29. Myeloproliferative syndrome is a non-specific (NOS) histology and polycythemia vera is a specific type of myeloproliferative disease.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.
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.
Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?
Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.
In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.
CS Extension--Ovary: Are "non-invasive implants" identified per pathology coded differently than "invasive 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.No, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary.
Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the primary site coded to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast] or C493 [ Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax ] for a tumor described as a "high grade soft tissue sarcoma present in the upper outer quadrant of breast"?
If the sarcoma is primary in the breast, code the primary site to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast]. C500 - C509 includes soft tissue of breast.
Birthplace/Place of birth, country: For patients originally born in a country that is currently listed as "historic only", where the original birth country now has a one-to-many relationship with the current country, how should the reported original birthplace be coded? (Example: Yugoslavia)
Assign code for Europe, NOS (ZZE) for Yugoslavia, NOS, without further information.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated] for cases diagnosed in 2003 or later?
For prostate cases diagnosed in 2003 and forward: convert Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated].
Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: How are these fields coded for localized disease described as "Nodal Kaposi Sarcoma" found on inguinal node biopsy only?
Code the site of involvement as the primary site when no other involvement is documented. For the case above, code C774 [inguinal lymph node] as primary site.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 13 [Visceral].
First Course Treatment--Prostatic Urethra: Is Lupron coded for a papillary carcinoma of the prostatic urethra that is treated with a TUR with fulguration and beam radiation even though the prostate biopsies are negative?
Do not code lupron as treatment for a primary in the prostatic urethra.
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