Reportability/In Situ--Prostate: Was there a time period when PIN III was reportable to SEER?
Per the 2004 SEER Manual, page 2, Reportable Diagnoses, Exceptions, 1.b.iii "Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) of the prostate (C619). (Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 and later.)"
CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Breast: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Discussion.
A breast cancer patient had an FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection.
Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy.
This question is answered for EOD in SINQ 20031059. What is the answer for Collaborative Stage?
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.Include all nodes examined by the pathologist in Regional lymph nodes positive and Regional lymph nodes examined, unless there is disease progression. These fields are cumulative -- record the total number of regional nodes positive and examined during first course of treatment. Preoperative treatment does not affect the coding of these fields.
An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 95 for number positive and 95 for number examined.
For the case examples above, assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07 for both examples.
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.
CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?
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 code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for a 1.5 cm clinically palpable tumor that appeared to be a cyst with a papilloma when the partial mastectomy Path Micro stated the lesion was an "intraductal papilloma with focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Should the size be coded to 999 [unknown] because the noninvasive papillary carcinoma is described only as "focal" and is not measured and it is not known how much of the tumor is benign and how much is in situ. Or would the size be coded to the size of the palpable mass, 1.5 cm?
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 tumor size as 999 [unknown]. Size of the focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma is not stated.
Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL?
Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma.
Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Diagnostic Confirmation: Which histology code is preferred if the CBD brushing is positive for malignant cells, cytologically most consistent with ductal adenocarcinoma [8500/3], and the common hepatic artery lymph node biopsy has metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8160 [Cholangiocarcinoma]. Code from the pathology specimen when available. In this case, the only pathology is from the lymph node specimen.
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.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Is it better to code to 26 [Stated as N1, NOS] or 28 [Stated as N2, NOS] instead of 60 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS; Lymph nodes, NOS] when the only information in the medical record is the TNM N1 or N2 physician stage?
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.
Yes. When the only indication of lymph node involvement is the physician's N category from TNM, code the numerically lowest equivalent CS Lymph Nodes code for that N category.
In the breast schema, CS Lymph Nodes code 26 corresponds to N1, NOS and code 28 corresponds to N2, NOS.
Reportability/Behavior--Colon: Is a final diagnosis of "mucosal carcinoid" of the colon reportable with a behavior code 2 [in situ] or 3 [invasive] if the microscopic description states that a "malignancy is not appreciated"? See Discussion.
2002 carcinoid case. Path final diagnosis: sigmoid colon polyp, bx-- sm mucosal carcinoid (1.5mm) w/crush artifact in a colonic polyp showing assoc inflammatory and hyperplastic changes. Micro: due to prominent crush artifact, histologic detail is compromised; however, significant atypia or malignancy is not appreciated.
Our state registry requests that this case be abstracted using the histology code 8240/3 because it is a mucosal carcinoid.
AJCC states TIS as being confined w/i basement membrane w/no extension through muscularis mucosae into submucosa. SEER-EOD codes as invasive: mucosa, lamina propria and muscularis mucosae. Our pathologist goes along with AJCC while we are having to code with SEER rules.
1) Assign /3 to mucosal carcinoid, unless stated to be in situ in the final diagnosis. ICD-O-3 is the reference for assigning the behavior code, not AJCC, EOD or CS.
2) The ICD-O-3 code for carcinoid of the sigmoid colon is C187 8240/3. This is reportable to SEER based on the final diagnosis above. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home