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: 07/03/2024 06:29 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031026 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a "localized, NOS?" See discussion. How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS]. 2003
20051124 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Are the EOD guidelines developed for coding apex involvement still in effect for determining the code for apical involvement in SSF 4? See Discussion. How do the old prostate codes 31, 33, and 34 correspond to the new SSF 4 field? Because "arising in" or "extending into" apex is rarely, if ever, stated, previous SEER guidelines instructed us to use code 33 for "apex only" involvement, and code 34 for "apex and any other area of prostate". Code 31 [into/arising, NOS] was to be avoided.

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, the EOD guidelines for coding apex involvement are not in effect for coding SSF4.

The codes for CS site specific factor 4 include code 2 [into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS]. When it cannot be determined if apical involvement is arising in, or extending to, the apex, use code 2.

 2005
20041096 Behavior Code--Breast: How is this field coded for a "non-invasive Paget disease of the breast?" See Discussion. Historically, SEER collected Paget Disease of the breast with a behavior code of 3 [invasive]. There is no documentation to support this. The SEER EOD Manual only states that if the code is "05" [Pagets disease (without underlying tumor)], the behavior must be a 2 [in situ] or a 3 [invasive].

Code the behavior as /2 [in situ] for noninvasive Paget disease of breast. Noninvasive is a synonym of in situ.

If the pathology report documents that the Paget disease is in situ, the matrix principle in ICD-O allows you to change the behavior code to match the pathologist's statement.

 2004
20041074 Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Is the histology coded as adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is adenocarcinoma but the colonoscopy report associated with the path states that the surgeon performed a polypectomy? See Discussion. Histology: 3/04 Colonoscopy with polypectomy of a sessile appearing polyp. Path report: Final Dx: Adenocarcinoma; Micro: Adenocarcinoma apparently arising from the mucosa...noted to invade the muscularis mucosa into the submucosa.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007

Code this case to adenocarcinoma [8140]. The best source for histology is the final diagnosis on the path report from the procedure that removed the most tumor tissue. When there is a conflict, the path diagnosis has higher priority than the colonoscopy diagnosis for coding 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.

 2004
20091081 Reportability/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is an "inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor" reportable for Brain and CNS sites? See Discussion. Histology code 8825/1 (Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor) is not listed in the ICD-0-3 Primary Brain and CNS Site/Histology listing for reportable Brain/CNS tumors.

If the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is primary in one of the sites specified below and diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later, it is reportable.

Reportable brain and CNS tumors are any benign and borderline primary intracranial and CNS tumors with a behavior code of /0 or /1 in ICD-O-3 diagnosed 1/1/2004 and later, of the following sites:

  • Cerebral meninges C700
  • Spinal meninges C701
  • Meninges, NOS C709
  • Cerebrum C710
  • Frontal lobe C711
  • Temporal lobe C712
  • Parietal lobe C713
  • Occipital lobe C714
  • Ventricle, NOS C715
  • Cerebellum, NOS C716
  • Brain stem C717
  • Overlapping lesion of brain C718
  • Brain, NOS C719
  • Spinal cord C720
  • Cauda equine C721
  • Olfactory nerve C722
  • Optic nerve C723
  • Acoustic nerve C724
  • Cranial nerve, NOS C725
  • Overlapping lesion of brain and central nervous system C728
  • Nervous system, NOS C729
  • Pituitary gland C751
  • Craniopharyngeal duct C752
  • Pineal gland C753

 2009
20110016 Behavior--Brain and CNS: Can hemangioblastomas occurring in the CNS be coded as /3 (malignant) based on a radiologic or clinical diagnosis by the physician? See Discussion. Hemangioblastomas are borderline (/1) according to ICD-O. The standard matrix rule in ICD-O directs registrars to change the behavior code to malignant when a malignant (/3) behavior is stated by a physician for a morphology code that appears in ICD-O with a non-malignant behavior code. The "malignant" hemangioblastomas we see are not pathologically confirmed; they are radiological or clinical diagnoses confirmed when renal cell carcinoma is a disease process listed in the malignant differential diagnoses.

The behavior code for hemangioblastoma can be coded to /3 when a pathologist indicates that the behavior is malignant. The behavior code should be based on a pathologist's opinion. It is usually not possible for a radiologist or patient care physician to make this determination clinically.

The histologic appearance of hemangioblastoma may resemble metastatic renal cell carcinoma; therefore, one will often see renal cell carcinoma listed as a possible diagnosis. This does not indicate that the hemangioblastoma is malignant. Do not code the behavior as /3 based on a differential diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma.

2011
20031138 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. 2003
20100090 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. 2010
20021048 EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion. For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field.

 2002
20021034 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma with a mucinous component, the mucinous component is less than 50%"? See discussion. For mucinous only, the tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous to be coded to the specific histology.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Because the mucinous component involves less than 50% of the tumor, the histology is not coded to mucinous. For mucinous only, the tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, to be coded to the specific 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.

 2002