| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20061055 | CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What criteria is used to distinguish between code 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] and 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when positive lymph nodes are removed during a colon resection but the lymph node location is not stated? See Discussion. | Example 1: Descending colon excision: Metastatic adenocarcinoma in 8 of 9 lymph nodes.
Example 2: Hepatic flexure and en bloc resection of liver. Adenocarcinoma in 3 of 10 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 positive nodes included with the resected specimen as regional lymph nodes, NOS when the location is not stated. See number 3.e under the general instructions for coding CS lymph nodes. Based only on the information provided, code CS lymph nodes 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] for both examples. |
2006 |
|
|
20061146 | Primary Site--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are there any guidelines for the use of topography code C420 [blood] rather than C421 [bone marrow], or C424 [Hematopoietic system, NOS] for hematopoietic diseases other than Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are no specific guidelines concerning code C420 versus C421 or C424, other than the suggested topography codes in ICD-O-3 (see Rule H). The Hematopoietic task force is in the early phases of developing guidelines for these diseases. This issue will be presented to the task force for their consideration. 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 | |
|
|
20061044 | CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: If a lymph node dissection of the neck reveals that 1/24 lymph nodes is positive and the positive 5.6 cm lymph node extends throughout levels II-IV, how are the SSF 3 (status of levels I-III lymph nodes) and SSF4 (status of levels IV-V lymph nodes) fields 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.According to the CS Steering Committee, code 999 for SSF 3 and SSF 4. In this case, do not make assumptions about which level of lymph nodes were involved. |
2006 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20061093 | Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion. | Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS. Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers. Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case. |
Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false. | 2006 |
|
|
20061029 | Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary. If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary. 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 | |
|
|
20061118 | Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant? | Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site. If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site]. According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
Home
