Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20150027 | Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion. |
Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.
In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.
Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.
Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)? |
Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection. |
2015 |
|
|
20180037 | Date of Diagnosis--Colon: If a patient has a positive Cologuard test, is the date of diagnosis the date of the cologuard test or the date of the biopsy? |
Do not use the date of a positive Cologuard test as the date of diagnosis. |
2018 | |
|
|
20200032 | Date of Diagnosis--Brain and CNS: How is the Date of Diagnosis coded when an MRI clinically diagnoses a borderline brain tumor on 4/4/2020, but the subsequent biopsy pathologically diagnoses a malignant brain tumor on 5/20/2020? See Discussion. |
Clinically, the patient was felt to have a pineocytoma (borderline tumor) on imaging, but the subsequent biopsy proved a pineal germinoma (malignant tumor). The Date of Diagnosis instructions state to code the month, day and year the tumor was first diagnosed, clinically or microscopically, by a recognized medical practitioner, but it does not indicate whether differences in behavior alter the diagnosis date. For brain and central nervous system tumors, should the diagnosis date be the first date a tumor is SEER reportable? Or should the diagnosis date for those tumors ultimately proven to be malignant, be the date the malignancy was diagnosed? |
This tumor was first diagnosed on 4/4/2020 according to the information provided. The pineocytoma was reportable based on a behavior of /1; it was later confirmed as a pineal germinoma; update both the histology and behavior on the abstract as better information was obtained, retaining the original date of diagnosis. |
2020 |
|
|
20071044 | Date of Conclusive Terminology: Is there an applicable timeframe when coding this field? |
There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up. The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology." |
2007 | |
|
|
20021162 | Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion. |
Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients. |
Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields. |
2002 |
|
|
20110088 | Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion. |
The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon? |
Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery. |
2011 |
|
|
20160038 | 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. |
2016 | |
|
|
20210006 | Behavior/Summary Stage 2018--Colon: What is the correct behavior and Summary Stage for a case of intramucosal adenocarcinoma arising in tubular adenoma? AJCC states this is Tis, though SEER Summary Stagie states this is Localized (code 1). The histology is 8140/2 (adenocarcinoma in situ), but the SEER Summary Stage is Locallized. |
Intramucosal carcinoma of the colon is assigned behavior code of /3. Intramucosal is not the same as in situ in terms of behavior. Behavior and staging are separate concepts, although there is some overlap. Use the instructions for coding behavior to code this field. Do not use stage to determine behavior in this case. For purposes of Summary Stage, intramucosal carcinoma is a localized lesion; however, for purposes of AJCC staging, assign Tis for the stage. |
2021 | |
|
|
20091021 | Behavior/Reportability--All sites: Would a GIST tumor stated to be "high risk for malignant behavior" be a reportable GIST? See Discussion. |
According to our pathologist and oncologist, the terms "malignant" and "benign" do not apply to GIST. Rather, the term "high risk for malignant behavior" is used. This is based on tumor size: greater than 5 cm and mitotic activity: greater than 5 mitoses/50 hpf. |
Do not report the case to SEER if it does not satisfy the criteria for reportability. According to the current reportability criteria, malignant GIST (8936/3) is reportable to SEER. GIST coded to 8936/0 or 8936/1 is not reportable. If your pathologist will not indicate "malignant" or "benign," code 8936/1 applies according to ICD-O-3 and, therefore, these are not reportable to SEER. |
2009 |
|
|
20051059 | Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy? |
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report. |
2005 |
An official website of the United States government
