Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031130 | Primary site--Melanoma: Should melanoma of the nipple be coded to C50.0 [Nipple] or C44.5 [Skin of the trunk]? | Code to C44.5 [skin of trunk]. External melanoma is an epidermal malignancy, beginning in melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. C50.0 excludes skin of breast. | Melanoma | Primary site | 2003 | |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two 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. |
Breast | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031198 | Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description. | Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma. | If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated. | Head & Neck | Date therapy initiated, Surgery of Primary Site | 2003 |
|
|
20031171 | Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description. | In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant? Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered. |
Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable. The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031141 | Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. | For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. | Breast | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031116 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description. |
Site: Bladder CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder. Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor. OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion. |
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam. The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031102 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should the histology "Polymorphic Adenocarcinoma" be coded to 8022/33 [Polymorphic Carcinoma] or 8140/33 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The histology code for pleomorphic adenocarcinoma of the lung is 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, "Given lung as primary site I prefer 8140. This loses the pleomorphic modifier, but going to 8022 loses the adeno- designation which is more important. Pathologists occasionally use pleomorphic carcinoma for lung tumors which otherwise dont show any adeno or squamous differentiation, for which 8022 would be appropriate, but in this case we do have the adeno designation."
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. |
Lung | Histology | 2003 | |
|
|
20031094 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are coded and what code(s) is/are used to represent the histology "invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive spindle metaplastic change [metaplastic carcinoma] with a second, separate, tumor "invasive ductal carcinoma, moderately differentiated with extensive associated DCIS"? See Description. | The comment on the pathology report states, "due to the associated DCIS this smaller lesion is felt to most likely represent a synchronous second primary." Is this two primaries, one coded 8575/33 and the other coded 8500/32 or is this a single primary with a combination code -- 8523/33? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract as two breast primaries. Code to 8575/33 (metaplastic carcinoma) and 8500/32 (infiltrating duct carcinoma). There are two lesions with different histologic types. Do not use code 8523 to combine separate tumors with different histologies.
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. |
Breast | Histology | 2003 |
|
|
20031089 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bone: How are these fields coded for a squamous cell carcinoma in bone? See Description. | The consult path report says "I believe that there is definitely high grade malignant tumor in this amputation specimen, and that this tumor represents an invasive squamous cell carcinoma, which is extending into the bone and permeating in between the bone trabeculae. ... The fact that squamous cell carcinoma can arise from the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis is well recognized." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based on the information provided, code the primary site as C40._ or C41._ [bone] because the tumor originated in the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis. Code to the site in which the tumor arises. Override the SEER site/histology edits to allow this rare combination of bone and squamous cell carcinoma.
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. |
N/A | Histology, Primary site | 2003 |
|
|
20031043 | EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: How is this field coded for a stage III A endometrial primary with positive pelvic washings, involvement of the omental serosa, and negative lymph nodes? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension as 85 [Metastasis]. According to our TNM consultant, Omental metastasis is M1, Stage IVB [EOD 85]. | Corpus uteri | N/A | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
