Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081070 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: How are the following lymph node regions/chains coded in the Collaborative Stage schema for ovary?
1. pericolonic 2. pelvic, NOS 3. mesenteric, NOS |
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.Revised 7-17-09 Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 for involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, NOS. Code involvement of pericolonic nodes or mesenteric nodes, NOS in CS lymph nodes. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081119 | 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20081134 | MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion. |
Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors. The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules. |
2008 |
|
|
20081076 | Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion. | The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors. | Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable. | 2008 |
|
|
20081023 | Histology: Must every word in the ICD-O-3 code definition appear in the diagnosis in order to assign that ICD-O-3 code? See Discussion. | Is the diagnosis "Acute myeloid leukemia, M2" coded to Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation, FAB M2, NOS, (9874/3) or to Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS, (9861/3)? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The general instructions for assigning histology codes are to code as precisely as possible. Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation is the definition of the FAB M2 category. A pathologist does not need to provide every word in the term associated with an ICD-O code; pathologists don't always talk that way. AML M2 is a very specific diagnosis and should be coded to 9874/3. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2008 |
|
|
20081136 | CS Extension--Corpus uteri: Can a suspicious cytology be used to code extension? See Discussion. | Endometrial primary confirmed by biopsy on 10/26/06. Pelvic washing on 11/14/06 was 'suspicious for malignancy.' Resection path the same day stated the primary tumor invades the inner 1/3 of the myometrium.
Can we use the pelvic washing cytology & code CS extension 61 or should CS extension be coded 12? |
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.Assign extension code 61 [cancer cells in peritoneal washings] for the case described above. "Suspicious" is listed as a term indicating involvement. There is no exception noted for cytology reports. See page 122 of the 2007 SEER manual. |
2008 |
|
|
20081122 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Patient has single invasive left breast tumor diagnosed in 2008. Final pathology diagnosis is "Invasive solid papillary carcinoma". No mention of ductal in report. What is histology? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: As of July 2010: Code the histology 8503 [Infiltrating papillary adenocarcinoma]. This is solid papillary, not solid AND papillary carcinoma. Solid is an adjective modifying papillary, in other words, a subtype of papillary. We do not have a code for solid papillary, so we code to the NOS, papillary using rule H14. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081015 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion. |
After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply. |
2008 |
|
|
20081024 | 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20081080 | 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: |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
