Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041083 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion. | Rectal primary: 5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1. |
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 CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging. |
2004 |
|
|
20041031 | CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded when the pathology states "papillary transitional cell carcinoma with no invasion into the submucosa or deep muscularis" but there is "focal extension of tumor into bladder diverticula"? | 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 the CS Extension field to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma stated to be noninvasive]. Extension into bladder diverticula does not change the code. Diverticula are pouches in the mucosa (mucous membrane). |
2004 | |
|
|
20041064 | CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS TS/Ext-Eval--Breast: How do you code these fields when the tumor size and extension differ pre and post treatment with neoadjuvant Arimidex? See Discussion. | Clinically on PE 3 cm mass attached to skin with dimpling and erythema overlying the mass. Ultrasound: 2-3 cm breast mass with overlying skin thickened by US evaluation, suggesting dermal invasion. Neoadjuvant Arimidex followed by MRM. Path: 4.5 cm ductal carcinoma (no DCIS), no invasion of skin. | 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.Record the larger tumor size and the farthest extension documented.
Code CS Tumor Size/Extension Evaluation to 6 [Surgical resection performed, WITH pre-surgical systemic treatment...; tumor size/extension based on pathologic evidence].
Code CS Tumor Size for the example to 045 [4.5 cm].
Code CS Extension to 20 [Local skin involvement ...] based on clinical description provided. |
2004 |
|
|
20041039 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.
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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041076 | CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion. | Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)". Would these examples be coded to 46? Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3. Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3. |
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 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ. Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist. |
2004 |
|
|
20041099 | First Course Treatment: If a patient makes a blanket refusal of all recommended therapy or refuses all treatment before any therapy was recommended, are only immunotherapy and hematologic/endocrine therapies to be coded as refused (code 87)? Or should all treatment modalities be coded as refused if a patient makes a blanket refusal? Or should none of the treatment modalities be coded as refused because we do not know what would have been recommended? See Discussion. | Coding instructions for immunotherapy and for hematologic/endocrine procedures state that Code 87 is to be assigned if either of the following circumstances apply: 1) If the patient made a blanket refusal of all recommended treatment. 2) If the patient refused all treatment before any was recommended. These instructions are not included for other treatment modalities. | When the patient refuses treatment, the first course of therapy is no treatment. Code all treatments as refused. | 2004 |
|
|
20041069 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a meningioma invading the bone malignant and, therefore, SEER reportable if diagnosed prior to 2004? See Discussion. |
1. Meningothelial meningioma with prominent nuclear pleomorphism, infiltration into dura, calvarium, temporalis skeletal muscle. Microscopic: Multifocal infiltration by meningothelial tumor...extensive infiltration of trabecular spaces, extension through inner and outer calvarial layers by meningioma...mitotic activity in tumor noted but below the 4 per 10 high power field threshold for diagnosis of atypical meningioma. 2. Aggressive (invasive) transitional type meningioma, neuroimaging and histology imply extensive invasive meningioma involving bone and paraspinal soft tissues. Microscopy:...invaded bone...focal EMA positivity diagnostic of invasive transitional type meningioma... tumor invades bone. |
The two cases above are benign meningiomas and not reportable prior to 2004. According to an expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant." The WHO Nervous System Tumor Classification states malignant meningioma exibits histological features of frank malignancy far in excess of the abnormalities present in atypical meningioma (WHO grade II). Examples of the histologic features of malignant meningioma are obviously malignant cytology, or high mitotic index (20 or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields). They correspond to WHO grade III and are usually fatal. |
2004 |
|
|
20041079 | CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants. | 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. The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1. Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each. Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041072 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically. Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms: Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR] Familial adenomatous colon polyposis Familial colonic polyposis Multiple familial polyposis In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP: Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty History of colectomy
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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041043 | First Course Cancer-Directed Treatment--Bladder: How should Mitomycin-C instillation for bladder cancer be coded? | Code the instillation of Mitomycin-C into the bladder for a bladder primary in both the Chemotherapy and Surgery to Primary Site fields. Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. Mitomycin-C is listed in SEER book 8 as a chemotherapeutic drug, specifically an alkylating agent.
Also, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 15 [intravesical therapy]. Code the surgical procedure as well as the type of drug (chemotherapy in this case). |
2004 |
An official website of the United States government
