| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061059 | Histology--Breast: Does "cancerization" mean invasive for a breast tumor described as "DCIS with lobular cancerization"? | No, cancerization is not a synonym for invasive. Cells of DCIS can extend not only along the duct but also into the terminal lobules. This extension is referred to as lobular cancerization. | 2006 | |
|
|
20061054 | First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy: Is adriamycin used in a chemoembolization procedure coded as chemotherapy? | Code as chemotherapy only when a chemotherapeutic agent is used, such as adriamycin. Do not automatically code chemoembolization as chemotherapy. | 2006 | |
|
|
20061047 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Peritoneum: How are these fields coded for extraovarian peritoneal carcinomas presenting with multiple peritoneal implants? See Discussion. | Patient presented with large omental cake and multiple peritoneal implants including implants on the rectosigmoid serosa and right ovary. Path revealed papillary serous adenocarcinoma consistent with peritoneal primary. Per AJCC Manual, extraovarian peritoneal carcinoma is usually staged with the ovarian staging classification. We understand that the CS Manual will eventually be revised to include staging for extraovarian peritoneal primaries. In the meantime, how do we use the existing CS scheme for peritoneum to code these cases? |
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 [unknown] and CS Mets at DX 99 [unknown]. The issue has been sent to the CS steering committee for resolution. This answer will be updated when the steering committee provides a resolution. |
2006 |
|
|
20061053 | Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion. | SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology? | Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology. Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case. |
2006 |
|
|
20061092 | CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ disease? | 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 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061017 | CS Eval--Prostate: How is CS Ts/Ext Eval to be coded for a clinically inapparent prostate cancer that is treated with Lupron and a subsequent prostatectomy? See Discussion. | Patient diagnosed with prostate cancer on biopsy for elevated PSA, CS extension code 15. Patient then receives 4 courses of Lupron. Subsequent radical prostatectomy shows bilateral lobe involvement with capsule invasion, SSF 3 pathologic extension code 032. | 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 TS/Ext Eval 6 [surgical resection performed with pre-surgical systemic treatment, tumor size/ext based on path evidence]. For prostate, CS TS/Ext eval must reflect coding of CS extension and SSF 3. In this case, SSF 3 code 032 is based on the prostatectomy information which occurred after systemic treatment. |
2006 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20061086 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of "Tumoral melanosis" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as "Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion. |
Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma. If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note? |
Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma. |
2006 |
|
|
20061005 | CS Reg LN Pos/Exam: Are lymph nodes coded as positive or negative when the pathology report for a lymph node dissection performed after radiation and chemo reveals that the nodes are negative but they demonstrated previous involvement by cancer? See Discussion. | Scenario: The patient was treated with radiation and chemotherapy prior to resection for esophageal cancer. The pathology report stated, "1/3 nodes c/w treated previous ca." | 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 lymph nodes that are pathologically confirmed as positive in Regional Nodes Positive. Evidence of previous involvement by cancer is not recorded in this data item. In the above scenario, the lymph nodes are negative according to pathology. Clinically positive lymph nodes are coded in CS Lymph Nodes. |
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 |
Home
