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: 11/05/2024 18:25 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061107 Histology (Pre-2007)/Flag--Pancreas: How is histology coded given that 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] of the pancreas is not on the SEER Site/Type validation listing?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] for "non-small cell carcinoma" of the pancreas. If necessary, override any site/type edits.

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
20061090 CS Extension--Prostate: Does the term "activity" in a Prostascint report indicate a clinically apparent tumor, tumor extension or tumor involvement for this primary site? (http://www.rtrurology.com/prostascint.htm)

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.

No, the term "activity" alone does not indicate clinically apparent tumor or involvement.

 2006
20061101 CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?

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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.

Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.

 2006
20061013 CS Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can this field be coded to 10 [Localized disease] for an extramedullary plasmacytoma that is limited to an extramedullary primary, such as appendix, given that this histology is not listed as one of the allowable histology/CS extension combinations for this code? See Discussion. The Hematopoietic Diseases scheme for CS lists specific histologies for which CS Extension can be coded to 10. Included is plasmacytoma, NOS [9731/3]. However, extramedullary plasmacytoma [9734/3] is not listed as one of the histologies.

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 10 [Localized disease].

Both the 2007 SEER manual (page C-1072) and the CS Version 01.04.00 manual (page II-550) have been updated to include 9734 [extramedullary plasmacytoma] under extension code 10.

 2006
20061130 CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per 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." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?

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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.

The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.

 2006
20061040 Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus? Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus. 2006
20061087

Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.

PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated. The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3. 2006
20061117 Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Is the code 8740/3 [malignant melanoma in a junctional nevus] to be used when the pathologic diagnosis is "malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS] for malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus. A compound nevus is not the same as a junctional nevus.

ICD-O-3 does not have a specific code for melanoma in a compound nevus. Assign the code for the type of melanoma specified; for example, NOS, superficial spreading, etc.

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
20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

What primary site code do we use?

Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

 2006
20061024 Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How is a "mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma" coded? See Discussion. Literature search results: "The new WHO-classification of renal tumors includes new subtypes, one of which is the mucinous, tubular, and spindle cell carcinoma. Many of these tumors had been previously diagnosed as sarcomatoid carcinoma. There are areas of cord-like growth and spindle cell configuration, sometimes with a clear cell appearance."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code specific to this combination histology. 8255 is the best code available.

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