Multiplicity Counter: Is there a time frame for the Multiplicity Counter or is it related to the duration for counting new tumors (i.e. 5 years for breast, etc) to capture the number of "local recurrences"?
Record the number of tumors counted as a single primary at the time the case is abstracted. Later, if additional tumors are determined to be the same primary, update this field once. Do not update the multiplicity counter more than once.
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.
MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.
However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.
Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.
MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code should be used with invasive papillary carcinoma with cribriform carcinoma component? There is also DCIS adjacent to the invasive tumor, predominant cribriform and focal papillary patterns. This is a single breast tumor. See Discussion.
Registry staff is divided between 8523 and 8255.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
First apply rule H9, code the invasive. To determine the code for the invasive histology, start with rule H10 and stop at rule H15. Code the histology 8503 [papillary]. Papillary (8503) and cribriform (8201) are listed in Table 1 as specific duct types, but in this case they are invasive.
Table 1 and Table 2 will be clarified in the next version of the MP/H rules.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology code is used for a single tumor, micropapillary carcinoma with components of mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H16 and assign code 8522 [Duct and lobular carcinoma].
Micropapillary is specific duct type (see Table 1).
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available.
This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion.
A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?
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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.
If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is SSF6 coded when CS tumor size is coded from a clinical report, not from pathology? See Discussion.
A breast ultrasound displays a 2 cm tumor. Core biopsy diagnosis is lobular carcinoma in situ. No further record for patient. Tumor size coded to 020. Should SSF 6 be coded to 010 "Entire tumor reported as in situ (no invasive component reported)" because it was pathologically confirmed, or to 888 because size was coded based on a clinical exam - the ultrasound?
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 SSF6 888 [Clinical tumor size coded]. When the size recorded in CS Tumor Size is not determined pathologically, 888 must be coded in SSF6. Note: The code in SSF 6 pertains to pathologic tumor size. It describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded.
An official website of the United States government
Home