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: 08/29/2024 22:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061017 CS Eval--Prostate: How is CS Ts/Ext Eval to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer that is treated with Lupron and a subsequent prostatectomy? See Discussion. Patient diagnosed with prostate cancer on biopsy for elevated PSA, CS extension code 15. Patient then receives 4 courses of Lupron. Subsequent radical prostatectomy shows bilateral lobe involvement with capsule invasion, SSF 3 pathologic extension code 032.

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.

Code CS TS/Ext Eval 6 [surgical resection performed with pre-surgical systemic treatment, tumor size/ext based on path evidence]. For prostate, CS TS/Ext eval must reflect coding of CS extension and SSF 3. In this case, SSF 3 code 032 is based on the prostatectomy information which occurred after systemic treatment.

 2006
20051054 CS Eval--Ovary: How is CS Mets Eval coded when the patient has positive pleural effusion confirmed by cytology?

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.Code CS Mets Eval for the example above 3 [path exam of metastatic tissue] assuming there has been no pre-treatment. Positive cytology is required for confirmation of pleural effusion for an ovarian primary.

 2005
20091124 CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.

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 code "6" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.

 2009
20051119 CS Eval--Colon: When the surgical resection occurs after radiation or chemo, how is the tumor size/extension evaluation field coded when there is no mention of the tumor size or extension in the surgical resection pathology report? See Discussion. 6/30/04 CT Scan abd/pelvis: 7.5x7.2 cm large rectal mass with l cm nodular densities in perirectal region probably adenopathy; irregularity of perirectal soft tissue which could be due to tumor infiltration. 7/26/04 Patient has radiation therapy and 5FU. 10/19/04 LAR: MD Adenoca rectum with regional node mets (3/8).

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.Based on the information provided above, code CS Tumor Size and Extension from CT scan. Code CS TS/Ext eval 5 [Surgical resection performed with pre-surgical treatment...size based on clinical evidence].

Code CS lymph nodes using information from resection. Code CS Reg Nodes eval 6 [Regional LN removed...with pre-surgical treatment...based on pathologic evidence].

 2005
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 2005
20051030 CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?

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.

Assign code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.

 2005
20110096 Behavior--Lung: How is behavior to be coded for a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of a lung tumor that is further classified per the CAP protocol as, "non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)" while the pathologist also classifies the tumor as pT1b, pN0? See Discussion. Is the following case coded with an invasive or in situ behavior when a RUL lobectomy specimen reveals adenocarcinoma and the Histologic Type per the CAP protocol layout is non-mucinous bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ)? The stage per the pathologist is pT1b, pN0. Per the COMMENT section in the pathology report, "The terminology adenocarcinoma in situ is based on a recent publication in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology (Volume 6, #2, February 2011). Based on this criterion, the behavior represents adenocarcinoma in situ with no evident invasive component." Code the behavior as in situ. The pathologist has the final say on the behavior of the tumor. This pathologist is indicating that in his opinion based on a recent publication, this tumor is in situ. 2011
20100036 Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion.

In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?

Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.

Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided.

2010
20061032 Behavior--Head & Neck: Should the SEER IF_Morph_3 edit be modified because it does not allow a behavior code 2 with histology 8941 [carcinoma in a pleomorphic adenoma] for a parotid primary?

Code the behavior as 2 and over-ride the edit. The edit is there to flag unusual combinations. Once you have verified that the behavior is coded correctly, over-ride the edit.

The surgeon stage of T2 is based on size of tumor, the TIS is based on behavior. Code according to pathologically confirmed TIS.

 2006
20091082 Behavior--Breast: How is this field coded for a case in which the final diagnosis reports DCIS, but the CAP protocol or microscopic findings show microinvasion? See Discussion.

1. Path report for breast cancer has final diagnosis as 'DCIS' but the CAP protocol in the body of the report says 'microinvasion seen, T1mic.'

2. Path report says 'DCIS' in the final diagnosis and microinvasion is identified in the microscopic portion of the report, but it is not in CAP protocol format and not stated in the final diagnosis.

Code both scenarios /3 [malignant (invasive)]. Information regarding behavior is not limited to the final diagnosis or the CAP protocol. See page 84 in the 2007 SEER manual:

Code the behavior as malignant /3 if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited; i.e. microinvasion.

 2009