Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20061002 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion. | 5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is one primary. Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.
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 |
|
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 | |
|
20061057 | 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. |
2006 |
|
20061039 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. | Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]? | 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 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020. The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm." It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2. |
2006 |
|
20051100 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be 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. |
2005 | |
|
20051103 | CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion. | For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present. Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression. Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression. |
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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above. According to our pathologist consultant: Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma. The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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. |
2005 |
|
20051054 | CS Eval--Ovary: How is CS Mets Eval coded when the patient has positive pleural effusion confirmed by cytology? | 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 Mets Eval for the example above 3 [path exam of metastatic tissue] assuming there has been no pre-treatment. Positive cytology is required for confirmation of pleural effusion for an ovarian primary. |
2005 | |
|
20051139 | Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion. | 11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise. 2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm 11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma 3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells 4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma |
Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case. | 2005 |
|
20051111 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out? | Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/ SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx: alemtuzumab/Campath bexarotene/Targretin bevacizumab/Avastin bortezomib/Velcade pegaspargase/Oncaspar rituximab/Rituxan trastuzumab/Herceptin asparaginase The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx: epratuzumab/LymphoCide ibrituzumab tiuxetan/Zevalin tositumomab/Bexxar Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy. There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy. |
2005 | |
|
20051129 | Reportability/Behavior--Thyroid: Does the term "invasion" indicate the presence of a malignant tumor? See Discussion. | Left thyroid lobectomy showed microfollicular neoplasm with evidence of minimal invasion. Micro portion of path report stated, "The capsular contour is focally distorted by a finger of the microfollicular nodule which appears to penetrate into the adjacent capsular and thyroid tissue." | We recommend that you contact the pathologist for further information. If no further information is available, do not accession this case based on the information provided. There is no definitive statement of malignancy. If the case was sent to a consultant, there may be another opinion available. If there is information in the record, or the treating physician can be contacted, find out whether the tumor was benign or malignant and whether there was any further treatment. According to our pathologist consultant, based only on the information above and nothing else, do not report since there is no diagnosis of malignancy. |
2005 |