Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20020039 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).
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 | |
|
|
20020015 | Histology (Pre-2001): For cases diagnosed before 1/1/01, what code is used to represent the histology "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2001, code the Histology field to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] for "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma". | N/A | Histology | 2002 | |
|
|
20021124 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion. |
1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored. 2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples. Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma. 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. |
Lung | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20021190 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology "transitional cell and small cell carcinoma" of the bladder? See discussion. | Code 8045/3 is used for combination codes that represent a mixture of small cell carcinoma and any other carcinoma. When we use this histology code for bladder primaries with mixed transitional cell and small cell carcinoma, we encounter a problem with the SEER edits (site and morphology conflict). | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Please see SEER Inquiry question ID number 20041104.
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 | Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20021172 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.
Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example. |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021140 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with "pre-epigolottic space" invasion? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue." |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021050 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion. | Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].
Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels]. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code. |
Pancreas | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20020063 | EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret "dermal lymphovascular space invasion" and "dermal lymphovascular invasion" for extension? See discussion. | A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state "dermal lymphovascular invasion". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion. |
Breast | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20021175 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.
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 | 2002 | |
|
|
20021173 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion. | The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].
The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.
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 | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
