CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ disease?
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 tumor size 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
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.
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.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Langerhans cell histiocytosis [9751/1] of the meninges [C709] reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. The criteria for reportable benign/borderline CNS tumors is based on location (site) and behavior (benign/borderline). There is no caveat for histologic type. Therefore, this would be reportable as these tumors have been reported arising from the meninges or choroid plexus.
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.
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.
Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer?
Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer.
2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Site Specific Factor: Does SEER plan to incorporate the "Recording Tumor Markers in Collaborative Staging System Site-Specific Factors" document that was prepared for the CS Task Force Training Materials into the 2006 SEER Manual?
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.
There are no plans at this time to incorporate the Recording Tumor Markers document into the SEER manual. This document is not part of the Collaborative Staging manual. This is a stand-alone reference endorsed by the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee for use in coding site-specific tumor markers.
CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: How is SSF 6 coded for this site when there is only one Gleason number documented and the number is less than 5 (e.g., Gleasons 3)?
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 999 [unknown or no information]. Note 1 was revised in September 2006 to clarify this situation.
Note 1 states "If only one number is given and it is less than or equal to 5, code the total score to 999, unknown or no
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion.
MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.
However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.
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 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)].
An official website of the United States government
Home