| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051113 | Histology (Pre-2007): What is the difference between code 8244/3 composite carcinoid (combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma) and 8245/3 adenocarcinoid tumor? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when there is a combination of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor. Assign code 8245/3 [adenocarcinoid] when the diagnosis is exactly "adenocarcinoid."
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 | |
|
|
20051086 | CS Site Specific Factor 4--Prostate: For apex involvement at prostatectomy, is only apical involvement found at prostatectomy included or is all histologically proven apical involvement documented in the second digit of Site Specific Factor 4? See Discussion. | Per note 1 for Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension all histologic information is used. Biopsy information would be included when coding path extension. Would all histologic information be used for coding prostatectomy apex involvement in Site Specific Factor 4? Example 1: Prostate biopsies of the right and left apex and right and left mid gland show adenocarcinoma. Prostatectomy shows bilateral adenocarcinoma. Apex negative for tumor. Example 2: Prostate biopsies of right apex and mid gland show adenocarcinoma. There is no mention of apex on prostatectomy path. How is CS Site Specific Factor 4 Prostate Apex Involvement coded? |
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 the second digit of CS SSF 4 based on prostatectomy only, do not include biopsy or other histologic information in the second digit. According to the CS Steering Committee, the clinical or biopsy of the prostate is included in the first number of the code and should not be combined with the prostatectomy code which is the second number. These were separated purposely. Example 1: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 1 [no involvement of prostatic apex]. Example 2: Code the second digit of SSF 4 based on the prostatectomy, 5 [apex extension unknown]. |
2005 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20051019 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How is this field to be coded if the pathologist staged the case pN1a and the lymph node is stated to be negative on H&E, is .3 cm on IHC stain for pancytokeratin but on review of smears shows no malignant cells? | 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 Lymph Nodes as negative [00]. The positive stain for pancytokeratin is contradicted by the statement "malignant cells are not identified." See also sinq 20010055. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051008 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is a "noninvasive papillary carcinoma, solid type, of the breast" coded to 8503/2 [noninfiltrating intraductal papillary carcinoma] or 8230/2 [Intraductal carcinoma, solid type]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8503/2 [Noninfiltrating intraductal papillary adenocarcinoma]. "Solid" is one of four subtypes of intraductal papillary carcinoma. The other subtypes are cribriform, micropapillary and spindle cell. ICD-O-3 does not provide codes for each intraductal papillary subtype, so code to intraductal papillary 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. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051020 | CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion. | In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones. | 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. First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage. If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated]. |
2005 |
|
|
20051101 | CS Extension--Cervix: How are "positive pelvic washings" coded for a cervical primary? | 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. According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051025 | Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are "lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion" and "Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat" reportable? |
Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051083 | Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when there is a marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma [9699/3] diagnosed in 2000, and the clinician states that the diffuse large B-Cell type lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2004 was a transformation of the prior primary? See Discussion. |
The Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates they are most likely "D" different disease processes. As any low grade lymphoma can transform, we suspect this represents a transformation (the clinician is regarding this as transformed). How many primary/ies should be coded? And, how? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Report this case as one primary according to the physician's opinion. Code the histology as 9699/3 [marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma, NOS] and code the date of diagnosis as 2000. Code the physicians opinion regardless of whether or not it agrees with the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table. Use the table when the physician does not state whether or not there is a new primary. 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 |
|
|
20051079 | Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable? |
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable. The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer. |
2005 |
Home
