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.
CS Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): If a patient with cancer of the larynx is described as experiencing hoarseness, is that sufficient information to code "vocal cord fixation" or does that phrase need to be used?
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.
Do not code vocal cord fixation when the only information available is "hoarseness." Vocal cord fixation must be documented on endoscopy. Hoarseness is a common presenting symptom of laryngeal malignancy.
CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: If the tumor size for the breast is unknown, and it is unknown whether the tumor is mixed in situ and invasive or "pure", how is SSF6 to be coded? See Discussion.
The definition for SSF6 for breast changed from "Unknown if invasive and in situ components present, unknown if tumor size represents mixed tumor or a pure tumor" to an added clarification of "Clinical tumor size coded." Since the clinical tumor size is NOT coded, this does not fit.
The definition for 060 is "Invasive and in situ components present, unknown size of tumor (CS Tumor Size coded 999). Since it is unknown if the tumor is mixed, this definition does not fit either.
It seems that the revised (April 2005) definition for 888 has left a situation that cannot 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.SSF 6 should be coded 888 in this case. SEER will make the CS task force aware of this situation.
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.
Reportability--Breast: Is a biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma of the breast nipple reportable if a subsequent areolar resection shows foreign body granulomatous reaction to suture material and no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis?
Yes, this case is reportable. The primary site is C500 [nipple]. There was a diagnosis of malignancy on 2/15/06: "Positive for malignancy." Even though no residual malignancy was found in the later specimen, that does not disprove the malignancy diagnosed on 2/15/06.
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.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How is an "advanced MDS (RAEB-T)/emerging AML" coded when discovered on a bone marrow biopsy?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code histology to 9984/3 [RAEB-T]. This particular MDS is refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation. It has not yet progressed to acute myeloid leukemia.
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.
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.
CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If there are two ER/PR tests, one positive and one negative, which result should be coded in the SSF fields 1 and 2? See Discussion.
SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast?
Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR +
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.
For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007, according to the CS Steering Committee, record the pathologist's interpretation of the assay value for the most representative tumor specimen. This may require conversation with the pathologist when specimen size is not specified.
An official website of the United States government
Home