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.
Behavior--Head & Neck: Should the SEER IF_Morph_3 edit be modified because it does not allow a behavior code 2 with histology 8941 [carcinoma in a pleomorphic adenoma] for a parotid primary?
Code the behavior as 2 and over-ride the edit. The edit is there to flag unusual combinations. Once you have verified that the behavior is coded correctly, over-ride the edit.
The surgeon stage of T2 is based on size of tumor, the TIS is based on behavior. Code according to pathologically confirmed TIS.
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.
Reportability--Skin: Is a pilomatrix carcinoma of the skin reportable if it is described as being a malignant diagnosis based on poor circumscription, infiltrative growth pattern, and focal abundant mitoses?
No. Pilomatrix carcinoma is not reportable to SEER. Please see page 1 of the 2004 SEER manual. Skin primaries with histology codes from 8090 to 8110 are not reportable. Pilomatrix carcinoma is coded 8110/3.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: How is a "carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, and signet ring cell features" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SEER Manual applies to this case.
Rule 7: Code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. This is the rule with the lowest priority and should be used infrequently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home