Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary/Endometrium: Is endometrioid adenocarcinoma occuring simultaneously in the left ovary and the endometrium one primary or two? See discussion.
Pathology Final Diagnosis:
Left Ovary: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma squamous differentiation grade 2 (scale of 3)
Uterus: Moderately differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation, grade II (scale of III). Focal, very superficial invasion to inner third myometrium with extension to lower uterine segment. Endocervix, cervix, right ovary and fallopian tubes negative for tumor.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the case you describe as two primaries. The endometrioid adenocarcinoma can arise in the endometrium without a concomitant ovarian 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--Corpus Uteri: How do you code myometrial involvement described as 1) "to the level of the middle one-third" or 2) "superficial"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Evaluate each case carefully.
1. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] because the pathology report indicates involvement of the myometrium "to the level of." However, if you feel that you cannot make that determination with certainty and you cannot ask a pathologist for clarification, then code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [Myometrium, NOS].
2. Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium-inner half] for cases with "superficial" myometrial invasion.
Date of Diagnosis: If a clinician states his current diagnosis of malignancy is based on a CT scan done at an early date that contained a diagnosis of only "neoplasm" or "worrisome for carcinoma" should the date of diagnosis be the date of the scan?
Yes. Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. The physician's clinical impression upon reviewing the earlier scan, is that the malignancy was confirmed by the scan. If there is a medical review of a previous scan that indicates the patient had a malignancy at an earlier date, then the earlier date is the date of diagnosis, i.e., the date is back-dated.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are "atypical melanocytic hyperplasia" and "severe melanotic dysplasia" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or malignant.
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-Size of Primary Tumor--Melanoma: How do you code tumor size for a melanoma diagnosed by a positive lymph node biopsy when the primary site is coded C44.9 because no primary site was identified? See discussion.
Should the size be 000 because no primary was found or 999 for unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 000 [No mass; no tumor found] when primary site is coded to C449.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
Surgery of Primary Site: Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? See discussion.
Many surgeons are doing exploratory surgery with laparoscopy involving a very small incision, but they can examine organs and take biopsies. Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/1998 and later: Exploratory surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic surgeries, are not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.
An official website of the United States government
Home