Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021099 | Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion. | 1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.
2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ). |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Both tumors are reportable to SEER.
1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].
2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
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. |
Pancreas | Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20021205 | EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration. |
Melanoma | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021008 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Bladder: What codes are used to represent these fields for a deeply invasive bladder primary treated initially with a TURP (for suspected prostate extension that turns out to be pathologically negative) and a TURB that is subsequently treated with a cystoprostatectomy? | For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code: 1. Surgery of Primary Site field to 60 [Radical cystectomy (male only)] because the cystoprostatectomy was the most extensive (definitive) surgery performed to the primary site. 2. Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites] based on the TURP. |
Bladder | Surgery of Primary Site | 2002 | |
|
|
20020058 | Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Would one primary be reported when adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp NOS [8210/3] and adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma [8263/3] were simultaneously diagnosed in the sigmoid colon (first 3-digits of the histology are different)? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as one primary. Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma]. Count as a single primary and code the more specific term when simultaneous lesions are present and one lesion is an "NOS" term and the other is a more specific term. "Polyp" is an NOS term. Adenoma is an associated term, but is more specific (Tubulovillous adenoma is more specific than "polyp"). 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. |
Colon | Histology | 2002 | |
|
|
20021012 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How do you code stage and EOD for an extranodal lymphoma with bilateral involvement of a paired site? See discussion. |
For example, we frequently see cases of lymphoma occurring in bilateral orbits, or both lungs. This issue was discussed at a 1991 SEER meeting with the tentative answer being that lymphoma involving both organs of a paired site will be coded as stage I (e.g., both eyes or both lungs), as this would be contiguous disease. However, an extranodal lymphoma involving tissue of both limbs (e.g., soft tissue of both arms) will be coded as stage IV because this represents wide areas of involvement that have no connection. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Bilateral involvement of an extralymphatic paired organ is coded as involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site for lymphomas. The EOD extension code would be at least 11 (Stage IE). Staging lymphomas of any site depends on whether one or more lymph node regions and/or extralymphatic organs are involved, and whether sites on one or both sides of the diaphragm are involved. |
Lymphoma | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20020056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is a 1998 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, followed by a 2001 squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder reportable as a second primary? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. This case is reportable as a second primary. The rule in the SEER Program Code Manual says that invasive bladder cancers with histology codes 8120-8130 [papillary, transitional] are always coded as a recurrence and are an exception to the multiple primary rule. Squamous cell carcinoma [8070] is not a part of that exception.
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. |
Bladder | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20020053 | EOD-Extension--Meninges: How do you code extension for a malignant meningioma that invades into the adjacent brain tissue? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60. Code 60 is defined as a brain tumor that extends into the meninges. It is also the appropriate code to use for a tumor that extends from the meninges to the brain. |
Brain and CNS | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021023 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion. |
For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field. Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown. |
Breast | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20021002 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis"? See discussion. | SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, "Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. "Comedocarcinoma" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. "Comedo type" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. "Comedo necrosis" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all."
Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [ductal carcinoma in situ].
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 | 2002 |
|
|
20021141 | EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.
Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case. |
Lung | N/A | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
