Other Therapy: Can herbal therapy be coded when used as a single therapy or when used in combination with conventional therapy as a complimentary treatment? See Discussion.
Page 201 of the SPCM 2004, item #5, states "Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy or given in combination with conventional therapy." This statement itself is ok but there is no guideline on the use of complementary therapy when it is given as the only treatment. The SPCM, 3rd editon, page 140 states: "Use code '6' for alternative and complementary therapies ONLY IF the patient receives no other type of treatment." There is no such statement in the SPCM 2004.
Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy (alternative medicine is the only treatment) or given in combination with conventional therapy (complementary medicine plus conventional).
Other Therapy/Immunotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should erythropoietin be coded for leukemia or other hematopoietic diseases?
Do not code Erythropoietin as treatment, it is used as an ancillary drug for leukemias or other hematopoietic diseases. Record information about erythropoietin in the text field.
Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of "other treatment"? See Description.
Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions.
SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain.
Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy.
Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer?
Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer.
Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion.
The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown.
Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated.
Multiplicity Counter: Is there a time frame for the Multiplicity Counter or is it related to the duration for counting new tumors (i.e. 5 years for breast, etc) to capture the number of "local recurrences"?
Record the number of tumors counted as a single primary at the time the case is abstracted. Later, if additional tumors are determined to be the same primary, update this field once. Do not update the multiplicity counter more than once.
Multiplicity Counter: Are in situ tumors diagnosed more than 60 days after invasive tumors of the same site and histology included in the Multiplicity Counter?
If an in situ tumor following an invasive tumor is a single primary according to the multiple primary rules for that particular site, include the in situ and the invasive tumors in the multiplicity counter.
Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion.
Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.
When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.
Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only].
Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor].
Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.
Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.
Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?
Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.
Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.
An official website of the United States government
Home