CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion.
The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.
If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.
Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.
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.
CS Tumor Size--Unknown & ill-defined site: For an unknown primary site, should this field be coded to 000 [No mass/tumor found] or 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record]?
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 Tumor Size field to 999 [Unknown; size not stated; not stated in patient record] when the primary site is unknown.
There is a discrepancy in Part I of the CS Manual on page 27, rule 5g, which says that primary site C80.9 should be coded as 888 not applicable. The CS Steering Committee has decided that the last line about unknown and ill-defined sites should be deleted from rule 5g. This issue will be addressed in a CS errata to be distributed in July 2004.
Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion.
A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not.
Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months.
In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report "metastatic papillary serous adenoca." Chart now says "History of stage 3A ovarian cancer."
Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): Can we ever code this field using a more specific cell type from a metastatic site specimen rather than to a less specific cell type from the primary site specimen? See Discussion.
The histology for a metastatic deposit biopsy is mucin-producing adenocarcinoma. This report states that the primary site is the stomach. It is more specific than the histology from the stomach biopsy described as adenocarcinoma, NOS.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology for the case example to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma], the more specific 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.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
CS Extension--Prostate: For a tumor that is clinically inapparent, but a biopsy from the prostatic apex is positive, is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)]?
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. Code CS Extension-Clinical Extension to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)] for clinically inapparent prostate cancer with positive apex biopsy.
EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of "necrotic masses, NOS" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description.
Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: "In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4" mass." No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code.
Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.
4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.
Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?
The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement.
An official website of the United States government
Home