CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?
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 code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.
Histology--Lymphoma: How is "histiomonocytic lymphoma" coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9755 [Histiocytic sarcoma; True histiocytic lymphoma]. "Histiomonocytic" is not standard terminology, according to our expert consultant. However, 9755 is the best code to assign.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is a 2004 "malignant melanoma, nodular type, epithelioid cell type" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8771 [Epithelioid cell melanoma]. Code the cell type when specified.
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/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."
Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".
Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.
Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.
Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.
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.
CS Extension--Cervix: How are "positive pelvic washings" coded for a cervical primary?
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.
According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri.
Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.
11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.
2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm
11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma
3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells
4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma
Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case.
CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?
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 term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.
Primary Site/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Lung: How are these fields coded when a chest CT for lung cancer documents multiple masses in different lobes of the lung? See Discussion.
Example
Chest CT: "Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease."
The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.
Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL?
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.Based on the information provided:
Code primary site C349 [Lung]. Code laterality 1 [Right]. Code CS Tumor Size 999 [Unknown]. Code CS Extension 65 [Separate tumor nodules, same lobe]. Code CS Mets at Dx 39 [Separate tumor nodule in contralateral lung].
Reportability/Primary Site--Head & Neck: If a wedge resection/shield resection is performed on the lower lip for SCCA and the path report refers to "lip, NOS" with no mention of vermilion border, is this case reportable?
Review the operative and pathology reports, and the physical exam for mention of "mucosal surface" (reportable) or "skin" (not reportable). If neither are mentioned, lip, NOS is reportable per the ICD-O-3 code of C009.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: How is histology coded if the final diagnosis is "melanoma" and only in the comment section of the pathology report is there an indication of "Type: Lentigo Maligna. Cell Type: Small Cell"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology as 8742 [lentigo maligna melanoma]. Code the specific histologic type, even if stated only in the comment section.
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