CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Lung: How are these fields coded for bilateral pleural effusion for a right lung primary? A code of 72 in the CS Extension field leads to a T4, but bilateral pleural effusion is M1. Should CS Mets at Dx be coded 39?
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 bilateral malignant pleural effusion, code the ipsilateral malignant effusion in CS Extension and the contralateral malignant effusion in CS Mets at Dx. Assuming the bilateral pleural effusion is the furthest extension in this case, code CS Extension to 72 [Malignant pleural effusion]. Code CS Mets at Dx to 40 [Distant mets, NOS].
EOD-Extension--Lung: Is this field coded to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] or 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] when there is no mention of the mainstem bronchus and a lobectomy is performed? See Discussion.
The clinical work-up shows a mass at the left medial apex extending into the left lung. No mention of the main stem bronchus. Because a lobectomy was performed, we assume, per Note 2, that the tumor was greater than or equal to 2 cm from the carina.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [tumor confined to one lung] for the case example. The EOD-Extension code 20 [Tumor involving main stem bronchus >= 2 cm from carina] applies to tumors involving the main stem bronchus.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.
Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:
Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]
Familial adenomatous colon polyposis
Familial colonic polyposis
Multiple familial polyposis
In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:
Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system
Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty
History of colectomy
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/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?
For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is "melanoma in situ."
The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).
Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.
4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.
Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?
The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement.
CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Can we interpret the in situ component as "minimal" when the pathology report states "1.1 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma and no extensive intraductal component"?
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. Based on the information provided above, the in situ component is "mininmal" for the purpose of coding Breast CS Site Specific Factor 6. The phrase "no extensive intraductal component" suggests that there is some intraductal carcinoma present.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Does 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma], 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] best represent this field for a lung biopsy described as a "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with squamous and glandular features with focal mucin positivity per mucin stain"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560/33 [Adenosquamous carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. "Glandular" carcinoma is a synonym for adenocarcinoma. Mixed adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is coded to 8560. Do not use code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes] when a more specific complex code is available.
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.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded when a core needle biopsy removes the majority of the tumor? See Discussion.
Rule 4.j on page 128 of the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code the tumor size from a needle biopsy unless no residual tumor is found on further resection".
Example: 3/04/04 core biopsy Rt breast grade 1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma tumor size 0.8cm. 3/10/04 Lumpectomy: 3mm focus of residual infiltrating ductal carcinoma. If we can not take the size of the core needle biopsy, do we use the residual size of 3mm or the clinical size which was 1cm on mammogram?
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 the tumor size from the mammogram. Do not code the tumor size from the needle biopsy because residual tumor was present in the lumpectomy specimen.
An official website of the United States government
Home