Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20061034 | Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion. | Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5. Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung. Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?
Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas. FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin. What primary site code do we use?
Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca. Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9? |
Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code. Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries. Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary. |
2006 |
|
20061016 | CS Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): If a patient with cancer of the larynx is described as experiencing hoarseness, is that sufficient information to code "vocal cord fixation" or does that phrase need to be used? | 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. Do not code vocal cord fixation when the only information available is "hoarseness." Vocal cord fixation must be documented on endoscopy. Hoarseness is a common presenting symptom of laryngeal malignancy. |
2006 | |
|
20061004 | CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6? |
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. Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size. For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive]. |
2006 | |
|
20061025 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How is an "advanced MDS (RAEB-T)/emerging AML" coded when discovered on a bone marrow biopsy? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code histology to 9984/3 [RAEB-T]. This particular MDS is refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation. It has not yet progressed to acute myeloid leukemia. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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. |
2006 | |
|
20061109 | CS Tumor Size--Lung/Breast: Explain why the SEER instructions differ from the CS Manual regarding priority order of sources to code tumor size? See Discussion. | Regarding the 2004 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Site Specific Coding Modules, Lung and Breast. The priority of sources for coding tumor size is Pathology, Operative Report, PE, imaging for breast and pathology, operative, endoscopic, and imaging for lung. This differs from the CS Manual instructions. | 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.For cases diagnosed in 2007 and forward, follow the instructions in the 2007 SEER manual and the CS manual. |
2006 |
|
20061061 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion. | Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes." 1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60? 2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process? 3. What would constitute "absence of other information"? 4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users? 5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate? |
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. Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have "regular" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described. 1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes. 2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3. 3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50. 4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries. 5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary. |
2006 |
|
20061141 | Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion. | Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital. Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate: Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia. Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process. Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear. COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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. |
2006 |
|
20061106 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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. |
2006 | |
|
20061039 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. | Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]? | 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 CS tumor size 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020. The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm." It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2. |
2006 |
|
20061055 | CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What criteria is used to distinguish between code 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] and 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when positive lymph nodes are removed during a colon resection but the lymph node location is not stated? See Discussion. | Example 1: Descending colon excision: Metastatic adenocarcinoma in 8 of 9 lymph nodes.
Example 2: Hepatic flexure and en bloc resection of liver. Adenocarcinoma in 3 of 10 lymph nodes. |
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 positive nodes included with the resected specimen as regional lymph nodes, NOS when the location is not stated. See number 3.e under the general instructions for coding CS lymph nodes. Based only on the information provided, code CS lymph nodes 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] for both examples. |
2006 |