Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031039 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description. |
CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]? |
Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor. Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031177 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description. | Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: "Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of 43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment." Path comment: "There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as "V2," indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion." |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node. When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown]. |
Colon | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031175 | First Course Therapy: Are radio immune labeled antibodies, such as Bexxar [Tositum--I-131] coded as immunotherapy, radiotherapy, or experimental therapy? |
Agents such as Bexxar or Zevalin are radioisotopes and coded as radiation. These agents destroy cancer cells with radiation. | N/A | First course treatment | 2003 | |
|
|
20031140 | Primary site--Unknown & ill-defined site/Kidney: How should this field be coded when humeral metastases are compatible with renal cell carcinoma pathologically, no kidney lesion is found clinically and the physician's signout diagnosis is "no primary found, as of now unknown"? See Description. | Path states "biopsy of humerus, mets sarcomatoid carcinoma consistent with renal cell carcinoma." Material was sent to Mayo Clinic for consult & they state "with focus of clear cells, agree that a likely primary is renal cell carcinoma." Abdominal CT showed no abnormality in kidneys. When the registrar abstracted the case she spoke to the managing physician who told her that "no specific site was found and it was, as of now, unknown." This was stated about three months after dx. Can we code as a renal primary based on pathologic information or should we code unknown based on CT and physician's statement? | Code this case to C64.9 [Kidney, NOS]. ICD-O-3 rule H states that the topography code attached to a morphology term may be used when the topographic site is not given in the diagnosis. Topography code C64.9 is attached to morphology code 8312/3 [Renal cell carcinoma] in ICD-O-3. |
Kidney, renal pelvis, Unknown & ill-defined sit | Primary site | 2003 |
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" 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. |
Breast | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031106 | Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion. |
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor. |
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2003 |
|
|
20031066 | Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of "infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: "Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else."
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 | 2003 | |
|
|
20031034 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?" |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent. 1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260. 2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260. 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. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | Histology | 2003 | |
|
|
20031054 | Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma? | Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record. In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding. |
N/A | N/A | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
