Date Multiple Tumors--Prostate: For a prostate biopsy done 10/20/08, both lobes involved with tumor, unknown how many tumors, what would be coded in date of multiple tumors?
In this case, code the date of the biopsy in Date of Multiple Tumors [10202008]. When the number of tumors is unknown, code the date of diagnosis as the Date of Multiple Tumors. This is the date on which it was determined that there were an unknown number of tumors. This instruction will be added to next edition of the MP/H manual.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Anus: What is the correct histology code and MP/H histology rule to use for AIN-3 arising in a polyp? See Discussion.
Patient has colonoscopy with excision of small 5mm polyp in rectum (no mention of anus or anal canal); path reads out: AIN-3 (anal intraepithelial neoplasm grade 3).
In coding the histology using the "Other Sites" rules, H2 would be the first rule that applies for this case. However, we lose the fact that the AIN-3 arose in a polyp (H3). Is this how SEER wants these cases coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H2 and assign histology code 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III). Apply the rules in order, H2 precedes H3.
First course treatment--Prostate: If a patient has a prostatectomy and the margins are positive, then several months later radiation is given because the PSA levels never decreased or have risen, is the radiation coded as first course of treatment or subsequent treatment?
Record the radiation as first course of treatment even though it was delayed for several months.
Radiation is highly effective when there is a small or microscopic amount of tissue left at the margin following prostatectomy. In most regions, radiation therapy is the standard of care for positive margins at prostatectomy.
MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?
Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.
Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.
Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.
See Discussion.
According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.
According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.
Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.
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.
MPH rules--Rectum: How is the number of primaries to be determined when a treatment plan has been completed, but it is not possible to determine whether there was a disease-free interval between occurrences? See Discussion.
Patient diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the rectum in March 2006, underwent chemo and radiation therapy as treatment. Patient seen in April 2007 for surveillance colonoscopy. HPI stated patient underwent chemorad with good results. Colonoscopy showed "persistent" disease. Abdominal perineal resection was done in May 2007. Path showed adenocarcinoma of the rectum.
Keeping in mind that we are not to use a clinical statement for determining recurrences, is the April 2007 occurrence counted as a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Do not abstract the 2007 events as a new primary. "Persistent disease" indicates there was never a disease free interval.
Primary site/Histology: Does SEER accept the site/type combination of lymph nodes (C77.0-C77.9) with the histology of either 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) or 9827 (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)? See Discussion.
There is a discrepancy between the SEER Site/Type table and the CS histology codes under Lymph Nodes.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not "impossible" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?
"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."
CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.
There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?
Examples:
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"
"2 cm invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS present"
"invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm. DCIS present"
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 SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.
If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.
MP/H Rules: Does the presence of metastases affect the application of the MP/H rules? See Discussion.
Single lung tumors presenting in each lung but the patient also presents with bone mets? Would rule M6 apply? Or do the bone mets represent additional tumors?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Ignore metastases when applying the rules.
For the case above, use rule M6 and abstract as two primaries (right lung and left lung). The bone mets are ignored.
An official website of the United States government
Home