System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 12/27/2024 22:52 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

CS Tumor Size

Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 2007
    		20071082

    MP/H Rules/Recurrence: Is a subsequent diagnosis of an in situ tumor (bladder cancers excluded) a "recurrence" if it follows a prior invasive diagnosis of the original primary cancer made 5 years before?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the 2007 MP/H rules to determine whether or not a subsequent diagnosis (either invasive or in situ) is a new primary or a recurrence. Do not use the statement "recurrence" from the medical record to make this decision.

    When evaluating a subsequent diagnosis and the MP/H rules indicate "single primary," the tumor being evaluated is a "recurrence" of the original primary cancer.

    		 2007
    		20071057 Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a lymphoma found in the spleen and retroperitoneal lymph nodes? See Discussion. A patient presents with a 6-month history of night sweats, low grade fever and significant weight loss. Physical exam reveals no palpable lymph nodes, tender abdomen and splenomegaly. Patient undergoes an exploratory laparotomy with splenectomy and dissection of two retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Spleen and both lymph nodes were positive for small cleaved-cell lymphoma, high grade.

    Code the primary site to spleen.

    Code CS extension as 22 [involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below the diaphragm]. This gives it a stage IIS.

    Spleen is an extranodal (not extralymphatic) site.

    The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are located below the diaphragm.

    		 2007
    		20071061 Histology--Melanoma: How is a "malignant melanoma arising in a melanocytic nevus" coded?

    The histology code is 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS].

    There is no specific code for melanoma arising in melanocytic nevus. According to our pathologist consultant, this is likely because nevi are so common, melanoma arising in association with them is common and appears to have no bearing on prognosis or treatment. Most pathologists do not include the nevus in the diagnosis of melanoma, even when they see it.

    Code melanomas arising in melanocytic nevi to the appropriate melanoma code, probably 8720, 8721, or 8743 in most cases.

    		 2007
    		20071054 Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion. Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?

    Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.

    The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.

    		 2007
    		20071081 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?

    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.Record the IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.

    		 2007
    		20071115 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How do you code the CS Tumor size and SSF6 fields for a breast cancer described as "Paget disease with underlying intraductal carcinoma (4cm x 3.2cm)"?

    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.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.

    		 2007
    		20071073 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion.

    A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features.

    The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma].

    After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523.

    This advanced concept of a "second pass" through the rules is discussed in an online web training session called "Beyond the basics." Go to the SEER website to view this session http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_advanced.html

    		 2007
    		20071124 Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion. For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor? If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors. 2007
    		20071035 CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.

    Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.

    Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?

    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 CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.

    Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.

    		 2007