SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.
1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.
EOD-Extension--Lung: How do you code extension for a lung tumor described on bronchoscopy as "obstructing the RUL and intruding into the right bronchus intermedius. Small tumor nodules distally in midline of anterior trachea wall"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because the tumor nodules are discontinuous from the primary tumor.
EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion.
Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "infiltrating lobular carcinoma, solid and classical subtypes"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8520 [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.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with "pre-epigolottic space" invasion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue."
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion.
Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate.
Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade.
Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion.
Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.
Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well?
For cases diagnosed 2001-2006:
Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second primary.
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.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?
1) Stricture of the common bile duct
2) Common bile duct is narrowed
3) Common bile duct is obstructed
4) Common bile duct dilation
5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct
6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion.
1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma.
2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3.
3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3).
4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4).
For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward:
1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis.
2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.
3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual.
4) Grade 3. "Grade 3 out of 4" is coded 3 and is more precise than "high grade."
An official website of the United States government
Home