| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20041015 | Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should this field be coded when a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is found in the femur and in the soft tissue of the anterior chest wall but all CT scans are negative for lymphadenopathy? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C809 [Unknown primary site]. The primary site of diffuse large B cell lymphoma can be either nodal or extranodal. The case described above is likely extranodal because there is no evidence of lymph node involvement. Because the extranodal site of origin is unknown, code the Primary Site to C809. 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. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041050 | Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: How do you code a procedure described as a "transanal resection, debulking of a large rectal mass"? See Discussion. | Patient is not a surgical candidate due to "other medical conditions". Colonoscopy done for anemia and rectal bleeding. At the colonoscopy a "Transanal Resection Debulking of large rectal mass" is performed. Two specimens are sent to the lab. The first is labeled "rectal mass" and is a 2.0 cm diameter spherical fragment of tissue. The second is labeled "transanal debulking rectal mass" and is described as multiple, irregular shaped fragments of tan, rubbery tissue measuring 5.0 x 5.0 x 3.0 cm. Final path diagnosis: Debulking of rectal mass: Adenocarcinoma greater than 2 cm in size, resection margins positive for tumor. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2002, code Surgery of Primary Site to 20 [Local tumor excision, NOS]. Because the procedure was performed via colonoscopy and apparently did not involve proctectomy, the best choice is a local excision. | 2004 |
|
|
20041100 | Sequence Number-central/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): What criteria are to be used to determine which primary site carries a worse prognosis? Should we take survival into consideration? See Discussion. | In the case of two or more simultaneously diagnosed primary tumors, instructions in the SEER manual state that the tumor with the worse prognosis is to be assigned the lower sequence number. Prognosis decisions should be based on primary site, histology and extent of disease. Stage as a criteria for decision making is fairly straightforward. On the other hand, decisions based on primary site seem to be more subjective than objective. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Compare the combination of the primary site, histology and extent of disease for each primary, and assign the lowest sequence number to the primary with the worst prognosis. Do not use primary site or histology alone to determine prognosis in the case of assigning sequence number. Survival is a component of prognosis. If there is no difference in prognosis, assign the sequence numbers in any order.
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 |
|
|
20041030 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What is the correct histology code for this case of squamous cell carcinoma with several different variants? See Discussion. | The path report from a left pneumonectomy says: This squamous cell carcinoma had several different variants present including typical non-keratinizing squamous cell, spindled cell squamous cell, clear cell squamous cell and a small cell variant of squamous cell. I cannot find a combination code that fits; the majority of the tumor is not stated; so do you code the highest specific type mentioned - 8084 - Squamous cell, clear cell type? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma, NOS]. Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS includes types of squamous cell carcinoma without a specific code. This is a combination squamous tumor that does not have a unique code.
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 |
|
|
20041002 | CS Size of Tumor/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How should these fields be coded for benign CNS tumors? | 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 Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors]. Code the size of the tumor if specified. Otherwise code CS Tumor Size as 999 for benign CNS tumors. |
2004 | |
|
|
20041063 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Mediastinum: How do we code these fields for a case described as a "neuroendocrine carcinoma" of the "anterior mediastinum" without failing the SEER "impossible" site/histology combination edit? See Discussion. | Two different facilities state that the patient has "neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum." This coded combination failed SEER edit (SEERIF38). We can not correct it because that edit flag does not appear on our system. Both facilities indicate that the mediastinum is the primary. In addition, there is text to support both the histology and primary site codes. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The combination of C381 [anterior mediastinum] and 8246 [neuroendocrine carcinoma] will be removed from the list of "impossible" site/histology combinations. There are rare cases of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum. As illustrated in the discussion, verify that the primary site is anterior mediastinum, the histology is neuroendocrine ca, and document those findings in the text.
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 |
|
|
20041062 | 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. |
2004 |
|
|
20041093 | Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? | If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. | 2004 | |
|
|
20041089 | Reportablility--Breast: Is lobular neoplasia, grade 2 reportable? See Discussion. |
Path report reads: Lobular neoplasia, grade 2.
According to the AFIP nomenclature for DCIS (taken from the WHO terminology), this would be the equivalent of LCIS. But nowhere can I find this specifically applies to lobular in the same way that ductal neoplasia is treated. |
According to the editors of ICD-O-3, lobular neoplasia grade 2 is not equivalent to LCIS. It is not a reportable term. Lobular neoplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia are equivalent terms having a three grade system. Only LN/LIN grade 3 would be reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3. |
2004 |
|
|
20041060 | Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER? |
For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it isĀ "melanoma in situ." The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical). |
2004 |
Home
