CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant brain tumor that presents as a lesion with significant pressure on the left frontal ventricle and dilation of the right ventricles? See Discussion.
CS Extension code 30 includes tumor that invades or encroaches upon the ventricular system. Does significant pressure mean the same thing as encroach?
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 assign extension code 30 in this case unless there is evidence elsewhere of ventricular system involvement.
"Significant pressure" is not synonymous with encroachment or involvement. See the list of ambiguous terms for CS staging on page 121 of the 2007 SEER manual.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
Histology--Head & Neck: How do you code histology for a myofibroblastic sarcoma of the soft tissue of the head and neck?
Assign code 8825/3 [Myofibroblastoma, malignant]. According to the WHO Classification of Soft Tissue Tumors, "Low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma represents a distinct atypical myofibroblastic tumor often with fibromatosis-like features and predilection for the head and neck." Also called myofibrosarcoma.
MP/H Rules--Fallopian Tube: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case in which a bilateral fallopian tube primary is staged T1c by the pathologist? See Discussion.
A bilateral fallopian tube primary was coded to multiple primaries. However, the AJCC staging for T1b says, "tumor limited to both tubes"
and T1c "tumor limited to one or both tubes." The tumor is T1c according to the pathologist. Is this two T1c primaries or one?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as two primaries using Other Sites rule M8.
This issue will be reviewed during the next update to the MP/H rules.
Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis?
If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Now that code 50 [fixed/matted ipsilateral axillary LNS, NOS] is obsolete, how is this field coded for a case in which there are clinically matted lymph nodes, no neoadjuvant therapy, and no lymph node size on the available pathology report?
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.From the American College of Surgeons: The pathologic information always takes precedence over the clinical information when there is no neoadjuvant therapy. The size reference is that this is not ITC or micromets. Clinically, I don't think you can have fixed or matted nodes that aren't greater than micromets. This would be coded to 52. The mapping for all of these codes is not taken from this, but from the value of SSF3 per the note at the bottom of the table. See CS Lymph Nodes note 2.
Race, Ethnicity/Spanish Surname or Origin: Which Spanish Surname List (from 1980 census or 1990 census) would SEER prefer us to use to code 7 in Spanish Surname or Origin? See Discussion.
In the SEER coding manual, it refers to "a list of Hispanic/Spanish names" (5e), but does not specify which one to use. Again, for the Computed Ethnicity field, which Spanish Surname List does SEER prefer us to use?
Determine which list is better suited for your geographic area. If the 1990 list is used, determine the probability cut-off that seems most reasonable for your geographic area.
CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.
According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.
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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.
The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.
Scope Regional LN Surgery--Melanoma: How is this field coded when there is no primary skin lesion and the only disease present is one axillary lymph node that reveals melanoma? See Discussion.
According to SINQ 20061045, the CS Lymph Node field is coded to 80.
Code scope of regional LN surgery 4 [1 to 3 regional lymph nodes removed] for this case. One lymph node was removed. For this case, the axillary lymph node is coded as regional for the CS Lymph Node field. Therefore, include this lymph node is also coded in the Scope of Regional LN Surgery field.
Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion.
Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was "positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma." Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign.
This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid.
An official website of the United States government
Home