Tumor Markers--Breast: If the ERA/PRA results reported differ for separate breast specimens removed for a single primary, do we code the results as positive or negative?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code both the Tumor Marker 1 and Tumor Marker 2 fields to 1 [positive] when a single primary breast tumor has both positive and negative ERA/PRA receptors.
Primary Site (Pre-2007)--Prostate/Prostatic Urethra: What code is used to represent primary site for an "adenocarcinoma with spindle cell differentiation" of the prostatic urethra?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to C61.9 [prostate] because the histology is adenocarcinoma.
When a malignancy is identified in the prostatic urethra, look at the histology to determine the primary site. If it is a transitional cell carcinoma, code the Primary Site field to C68.0 [urethra] and if it is an adenocarcinoma, code to C61.9 [prostate].
The EOD scheme is ultimately collapsed into the TNM scheme. The TNM system differentiates between adenocarcinoma of the prostate and transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra. Only adenocarcinoma of the prostate is staged by the prostate scheme. Transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra is coded to C68.0 [urethra] and staged with that scheme.
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.
Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified?
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).
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: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion.
Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease.
First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?
Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.
Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"?
No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable].
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?
1) Stricture of the common bile duct
2) Common bile duct is narrowed
3) Common bile duct is obstructed
4) Common bile duct dilation
5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct
6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home