CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: If the lymph nodes listed in codes 10 and 20 were contralateral or bilateral, and the only description was "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" on mediastinoscopy or x-ray, is this field coded to 60? See Discussion.
(CS Manual page 407) Note 2: If at mediastinoscopy/x-ray, the description is "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" of any lymph nodes named as regional in codes 10 and 20, assume that at least regional lymph nodes were involved.
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.
Yes. The named nodes listed in codes 10 or 20 should be coded 60 if the "mass", "adenopathy", or "enlargement" on mediastinscopy or x-ray is described as bilateral or contralateral.
CS Extension--Pancreas, Head: When a tumor is described as having "vascular encasement of the celiac artery", is extension coded to 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis]?
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 vascular encasement of the celiac artery to CS extension code 68 [tumor is inseparable from the celiac axis].
This celiac axis is a small (1cm) area of branching arteries. The celiac artery branches into hepatic, gastric, and splenic at the axis. Dissecting tumor out from around the celiac axis is very tricky and usually encasement by tumor is a sign of inoperability.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Flag--Pancreas: How is histology coded given that 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] of the pancreas is not on the SEER Site/Type validation listing?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] for "non-small cell carcinoma" of the pancreas. If necessary, override any site/type edits.
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.
Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus?
Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
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.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is benign neural tissue compatible with a glioneuronal hamartoma of the cerebellopontine angle reportable?
No. A glioneuronal hamartoma is not neoplastic and not reportable. See page 2 of the 2004 SEER Program Coding and Staging manual for the list of reportable brain/CNS tumors. There is no ICD-O-3 code for hamartoma.
Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?
The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant?
Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site.
If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site].
According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is a "plaque-like nodular spitzoid malignant melanoma" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8721 [nodular melanoma]. Essentially, "plaque-like nodular spitzoid malignant melanoma" is nodular melanoma. Code 8721 is the most specific ICD-O-3 histology code available for this 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.
Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion.
SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.
Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.
An official website of the United States government
Home