Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20061047 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Peritoneum: How are these fields coded for extraovarian peritoneal carcinomas presenting with multiple peritoneal implants? See Discussion. | Patient presented with large omental cake and multiple peritoneal implants including implants on the rectosigmoid serosa and right ovary. Path revealed papillary serous adenocarcinoma consistent with peritoneal primary. Per AJCC Manual, extraovarian peritoneal carcinoma is usually staged with the ovarian staging classification. We understand that the CS Manual will eventually be revised to include staging for extraovarian peritoneal primaries. In the meantime, how do we use the existing CS scheme for peritoneum to code these cases? |
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 Extension 99 [unknown] and CS Mets at DX 99 [unknown]. The issue has been sent to the CS steering committee for resolution. This answer will be updated when the steering committee provides a resolution. |
2006 |
|
20061117 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Is the code 8740/3 [malignant melanoma in a junctional nevus] to be used when the pathologic diagnosis is "malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS] for malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus. A compound nevus is not the same as a junctional nevus. ICD-O-3 does not have a specific code for melanoma in a compound nevus. Assign the code for the type of melanoma specified; for example, NOS, superficial spreading, etc.
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 | |
|
20061040 | Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus? | Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus. | 2006 | |
|
20061004 | CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6? |
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. Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size. For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive]. |
2006 | |
|
20061061 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion. | Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes." 1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60? 2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process? 3. What would constitute "absence of other information"? 4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users? 5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate? |
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. Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have "regular" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described. 1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes. 2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3. 3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50. 4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries. 5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary. |
2006 |
|
20061102 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: How is a poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma with "squamoid differentiation" coded? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Squamoid and squamous are synonymous. Squamoid is non-standard terminology. It means "squamous like" and is a synonym of squamous.
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 | |
|
20061037 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion. | Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered" A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma." These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease. According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells. 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 |
|
20061091 | Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable? |
Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node. |
2006 | |
|
20061144 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are these fields coded if a 3/17/03 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "malignant proliferative disorder" is subsequently confirmed to be a "low grade lymphoma" per a bone marrow biopsy in early 2006? See Discussion. | 3-17-03: Bone marrow biopsy from rt iliac crest: Hypercellular marrow (90%) with extensive involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder (see description). Micro: The bone marrow is diffusely (>90%) involved by a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder. This consists of small lymphocytes,histiocytes, and large atypical cells with prominent nucleoli.
12-22-05 Extensive bone marrow involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder, bone biopsy from femur.
1-27-06 Hem/Onc Physician Note: following pt for a lymphoproliferative disorder. ...bone marrow biopsy 2003, suggestive of, but not truly diagnostic, a lymphoproliferative disorder. Therefore, I elected not to do anything, but just follow her.
3-23-06 Hem/Onc Note: pt with a history of an apparently low-grade lymphoma involving the marrow, as well as, I believe, the liver and recently pathologically diagnosed as a T-cell-rich B-cell lymphoma. ...followed in the past by Dr. ___ and has never actually had any treatment for this lymphoma, although it is documented even three years ago by bone marrow biopsy. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Code the diagnosis date to 3/17/03. The histology code is 9970/3 [Malignant myeloproliferative disorder]. The bone marrow biopsy confirms a "Malignant" lymphoproliferative disorder. Apply ICD-O-3 rule F and assign /3 to histology code 9970. 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 |
|
20061116 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Is a "composite mucinous adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma" coded to 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or should 8480 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be coded rather than 8070 [squamous carcinoma] because mucinous adenocarcinoma is a higher histology code than squamous carcinoma? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, the mix of adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is adenosquamous carcinoma. Adenosquamous tumors are rare, but known, representing 3-4% of pancreatic carcinomas.
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 |