CS Extension--Breast: What is the CS Extent for this 2004 breast cancer? See Discussion.
A patient had lobular carcinoma of the left breast in 2000. At that time, she had bilateral simple mastectomies and the right breast was benign. In 2004, she notices a nodule in the right chest wall, which is excised and found to be invasive ductal ca and lobular ca in situ. So is this Sequence 2, C50.9, 8522/3. And what is the CS Extent - 40 chest wall? (The physician stages this as T2N0M0)
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.Residual breast tissue is present following a mastectomy. If the nodule is in the breast tissue (tissue above the ribs), assign CS extension code 10 [Confined to breast tissue...Localized, NOS]. If the nodule is in the chest wall (tissue below the ribs), assign code 40 [Invasion of chest wall].
Histology--Leukemia: How is "T-Cell prolymphocytic leukemia, cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant" coded when the pathology report COMMENT states: The cerebriform (Sezary cell-like) variant accounts for about 5% of cases of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
9834/3 [Prolymphocytic leukemia, T-cell type]. According to the WHO Classification of Haematopeietic and Lymphoid Tissue Tumours, cerebriform or Sezary cell-like is a variant form of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia.
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.
Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.
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.
Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?
Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.
Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."
Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".
Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.
Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.
Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.
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--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma?
In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004.
Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate primaries?
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 use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.
The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that "After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging."
August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee.
CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: How are these fields coded for a tumor stated to have only in situ disease in the breast with bone metastasis identified on scan? See Discussion.
4/20/04 Quadrantectomy: "Tumor involves a significant portion of the biopsy and is estimated at 10 cm in greatest dimension." The only other mention of size is from imaging studies which is 3.5 cm. The histology is "high grade ductal carcinoma with comedo necrosis. No invasive carcinoma identified." Bone scan on 4/20/04 shows "widespread metastatic disease to bone." By rule the behavior code for this case is changed to malignant.
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 tumor size as 100 [10 cm]. Size from pathology or operative report is preferred over size from imaging.
Code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and proportions of in situ and invasive not known.]
There is invasive tumor present (as proven by the bone metastasis), but the size and proportion of the invasive component is unknown.
Please note: Extension must be coded at least to 10 [Confined to the breast tissue and fat including nipple and areola; Localized, NOS] in this case. Do not assign extension code 00 [in situ].
An official website of the United States government
Home