Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Breast: How should this field be coded when a mastectomy that removed 3 sentinel lymph nodes is later followed by an axillary lymph node dissection that removed 17 lymph nodes? Should all of the lymph node information be coded to this field, even though the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field will be coded to the number of lymph nodes from the most definitive surgery (17)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Yes, all of the lymph node information should be coded to the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field using code 7 [Sentinel node biopsy and code 3, 4, or 5 at different times].
The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field no longer exists for this time frame.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 2003+/Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined--Hematopoietic/Brain/Lymph Nodes/Ill-defined/Unknown: Are codes 9 [Unknown; not stated] and 99 [Unknown; not stated] used respectively for these data items for the mentioned primary sites?
For cases diagnosed Jan 2003 and later:
The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field is blank for 2003+ cases.
Scope Regional LN Surgery--Melanoma: How is this field coded when there is no primary skin lesion and the only disease present is one axillary lymph node that reveals melanoma? See Discussion.
According to SINQ 20061045, the CS Lymph Node field is coded to 80.
Code scope of regional LN surgery 4 [1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed] for this case. One lymph node was removed. For this case, the axillary lymph node is coded as regional for the CS Lymph Node field. Therefore, include this lymph node is also coded in the Scope of Regional LN Surgery field.
SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.
1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.
Reporting Source: Is an ER patient who is diagnosed on peripheral smear with an acute leukemia coded as an outpatient if the patient died while in the process of being admitted for treatment or is the patient coded as a death certificate case?
Code reporting source as 1 [Hospital Inpatient/Outpatient or Clinic] for the case above. This case will be abstracted using information from the outpatient/ER record (and the death certificate).
Reporting Source: If the only patient record available for a physician office biopsy is the pathology report identified from a freestanding laboratory, is reporting source coded to 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)] or 4 [Physicians office/Private Medical Practitioner (LMD)]? See Discussion.
A case was identified through a pathology report from a freestanding lab. The doctor who submitted the specimen left the state. His records cannot be located. Because the patient had the specimen removed at a physician's office, not at a path lab, is Type of Reporting Source field coded to the physicians office?
Reporting Source is the source that provided the best information used to abstract the case.
For this case, assign code 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)]. Reporting source should reflect the lab where this case was identified. The MD office added nothing to the case, not even a confirmation of malignancy.
Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?
If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.
Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.
In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?
Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.
Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.
The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.
Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS?
Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases.
As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology.
An official website of the United States government
Home