Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?
The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: For lymphoma cases, can extension be coded to 80 [Nodular involvement of lungs] based on imaging or operative findings when there is no positive statement of involvement? See Discussion.
Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings?
Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R.
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.
Extension code 80 can be assigned based on imaging or operative findings as in the lymphoma case described above. The fact that this extension was not based on pathological evidence is captured in the evaluation code. Assign CS/TS Ext-Eval code 0 [No staging laparotomy done. No autopsy evidence used (clinical)].
Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.
An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.
CS Extension--Bladder: How is extension coded if the bladder tumor involves the right ureter per cystoscopy but the TURB specimen demonstrates muscularis propria invasion?
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 based on the area of deepest invasion. According to the TNM Supplement, which was used as a resource in the development of CS, "Direct invasion of the distal ureter is classified by the depth of greatest invasion in any of the involved organs." Record the greatest extent of disease using both clinical and operative/pathologic assessment.
CS Extension--Lung: Can extension be coded to 10 (Tumor confined to one lung) when either an autopsy or a CT scan describes the tumor as a mass of a specified size located in one lobe of the lung without any description of extension and no available TNM provided? See Discussion.
Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.
Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.
In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.
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, assign code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] for a mass in one lobe when none of the descriptions in codes 11 to 80 are documented.
Reportability: Is an AIN III that arises in perianal skin, skin tags or condyloma acuminatum reportable or must an AIN III arise in the anus or anal canal in order to be reportable?
AIN III arising in perianal skin [C445] is not reportable.
AIN III [8077/2] of the anus or anal canal is reportable.
Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is this field coded to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy] or 33 [Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection] when a lobectomy specimen includes 2 AP window lymph nodes? See Discussion.
LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.
1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done
2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs
3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded
Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?
Code surgery of primary site to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy]. According to the information provided, there was no lymph node dissection in this case. The 2 AP window nodes were obtained as part of the lobectomy specimen.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.
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.
Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion.
Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.
Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:
Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.
Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.
Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.
COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home