Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked "poorly differentiated" on the TNM form)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: If the grade given for the primary site is from a provisional diagnosis and the grade given for a metastatic site is from a final diagnosis, should we follow the SEER rule that says to code the grade as stated in the final diagnosis (e.g., Provisional diagnosis: High grade papillary serous carcinoma of ovary. Final dx: poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in a caval lymph node)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 4 [High grade] from the examination of the ovary (primary site). Do not code grade from a metastatic site.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Are diagnoses of "infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" and "duct carcinoma, mucinous type" both coded to the histology code of 8523/3?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code "Infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" to 8523/3 [Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] according to the instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology in Appendix C of the 2004 SEER manual. Assign code 8523/3 when the diagnosis is duct carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma. Look for "and" or "mixed" in the diagnosis.
Code the Histology field for a "ductal carcinoma, mucinous type" to 8480/3 [Mucinous carcinoma].
The instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology are to code the specific type if the diagnosis is "Duct carcinoma, _____ type."
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.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, "extending around" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and "encasing" the portahepatis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms "extending around" nor "encasing" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion.
If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. "
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Should an invasive malignancy following an in situ malignancy by more than two months be a new primary? Why? See discussion.
Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. These are two primaries.
In situ cancers are not included in SEER incidence rates. Incidence rates must correlate with mortality rates.
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.
EOD-Extension--Lung: Are "aortico-pulmonary window", "paratracheal space", and "subcarina" coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.
Would a lung tumor that extends into the AP window be synonymous with extension into the mediastinum? If so, would this also apply to extension to subcarina, paratracheal space, and other such terms corresponding to areas listed in the mediastinal lymph node field under code 2?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Extension into the aortico-pulmonary window, would be coded in the EOD-Extension field as 70 [mediastinal extension]. If the tumor extends into the paratracheal space, subcarina, or other areas listed under the code 2 in lymph nodes, code the EOD-Extension field to 70 to capture this type of involvement.
An official website of the United States government
Home