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: 08/26/2024 19:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061039 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]?

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 tumor size 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020.

The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm."

It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2.

 2006
20061144 Date of Diagnosis/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are these fields coded if a 3/17/03 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "malignant proliferative disorder" is subsequently confirmed to be a "low grade lymphoma" per a bone marrow biopsy in early 2006? See Discussion.

3-17-03: Bone marrow biopsy from rt iliac crest: Hypercellular marrow (90%) with extensive involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder (see description). Micro: The bone marrow is diffusely (>90%) involved by a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder. This consists of small lymphocytes,histiocytes, and large atypical cells with prominent nucleoli.

12-22-05 Extensive bone marrow involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder, bone biopsy from femur.

1-27-06 Hem/Onc Physician Note:

following pt for a lymphoproliferative disorder. ...bone marrow biopsy 2003, suggestive of, but not truly diagnostic, a lymphoproliferative disorder. Therefore, I elected not to do anything, but just follow her.

3-23-06 Hem/Onc Note:

pt with a history of an apparently low-grade lymphoma involving the marrow, as well as, I believe, the liver and recently pathologically diagnosed as a T-cell-rich B-cell lymphoma. ...followed in the past by Dr. ___ and has never actually had any treatment for this lymphoma, although it is documented even three years ago by bone marrow biopsy.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the diagnosis date to 3/17/03. The histology code is 9970/3 [Malignant myeloproliferative disorder]. The bone marrow biopsy confirms a "Malignant" lymphoproliferative disorder. Apply ICD-O-3 rule F and assign /3 to histology code 9970.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006
20061131 CS Lymph Node Examined--Lung: How is this field coded when a mediastinoscopy and lobectomy are performed and the pathology report indicates multiple lymph node fragments were removed as biopsy specimens and the lobectomy specimen revealed 3 interlobar lymph nodes?

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 the CS Lymph Node Examined field to 98 [number unknown] because the biopsy information is not clear and as a result you do not know how many lymph nodes were examined.

 2006
20061120 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Should a TURB be coded to 27 [Excisional biopsy; SEER Note: Code TURB as 27] when there is obvious extravesicular extension demonstrated because the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code an excisional biopsy when there is macroscopic residual disease"? Assign code 27 [excisional biopsy]. The site-specific instructions have priority over the general instructions. According to the instructions for coding surgery of the bladder, use code 27 for TURB. 2006
20061102 Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: How is a poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with "squamoid differentiation" coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Squamoid and squamous are synonymous. Squamoid is non-standard terminology. It means "squamous like" and is a synonym of squamous.

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.

 2006
20061056 CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are positive paracecal lymph nodes for cecal primaries coded to 10 [paracolic] or code 20 [cecal: anterior (prececal), posterior (retrocecal); 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.

Assign code 20 [Regional lymph node(s) for specific subsites]. Paracecal means near the cecum. Paracecal lymph nodes are regional nodes for the cecum and not for other colon subsites.

 2006
20061063 CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.

1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?

Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?

If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)

2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))

a. Heart problems?

b. The location of the pleural effusion?

i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?

ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?

iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?

iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?

SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION

Note 6: Pleural Effusion.

A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.

B. Note from AJCC manual: Most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor.

In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.

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.

1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.

2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.

 2006
20061094

Ambiguous terminology: Does the phrase "considered to be" represent ambiguous terminology when modifying a reportable term?

A tumor considered to be malignant is reportable. "Considered to be" is an UNambiguous term.

 2006
20061105 CS Extension--Bladder: Can the physician TNM be viewed as a clarifying statement when it provides information not documented elsewhere in medical record as in the example of a pathology report for bladder primary that demonstrates extension into bladder muscle, NOS but the physician documented TNM notes a more definitive T code for depth of muscle invasion? See Discussion.

In the Collaborative Stage manual in general instructions this guideline exists:

"The extent of disease may be described only in terms of T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) characteristics. In such cases, assign the code in the appropriate field that corresponds to the TNM information. If there is a discrepancy between documentation in the medical record and the physician's assignment of TNM, the documentation takes precedence..." (Similar to language to use SEER information over TNM).

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.Yes, you may code CS extension using the physician assigned "T" when it provides information not found elsewhere in the medical record.

 2006
20061112

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: In a patient with Muir Torre syndrome, should each of 12 sebaceous carcinomas diagnosed from 1994-2005 be a new primary or should this process be one primary diagnosed in 1994?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Follow the rules in the 2004 manual for determining multiple primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are in different sites (topography code difference in the first two numeric digits after the C), they are separate primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are more than two months apart, they are separate primaries.

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.

 2006