EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.
Site: Bladder
CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.
Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.
OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior
Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.
The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.
Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?
Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc.
Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description.
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only].
In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension.
Primary site/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for this type of primary site when a tumor excision and lymph node dissection is performed? See Description.
Patient had a left parotidectomy w/ neck dissection in 02/2003. Findings showed a 10x5cm neck mass over the angle of the mandible as well as a 1.5 cm level 4 mass. Path showed invasive mod diff squamous cell ca. with posterior soft tissue margin positive for tumor; small portion of salivary gland had no tumor. Metastatic SCCa in 5 of 34 lymph nodes of neck dissection; no tumor in parotid lymph nodes. Pathology report says this could be a parotid carcinoma because the bulk of the disease is in the parotid, but it could also be metastatic...correlate with clinical findings. Doctor calls this unknown primary of the head and neck. Is this C80.9 or C76.0?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The data item "Surgery of Primary Site" is intended to record only surgeries of the primary site. If the primary site is unknown or ill-defined, it is impossible to determine whether or not a particular surgery was performed on the primary site. "Surgical Procedure of Other Site" collects much less specific information; however, this is the correct data item to record surgery performed when the primary site is unknown or ill-defined.
For the case example, code the primary site as C76.0 [Head, face or neck, NOS]. Code Surgery of Primary Site as 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, with or without surgical treatment]. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site as 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed].
EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description.
The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type?" See Description.
The code 8144/3 is not valid for colon primaries. Should we code these as 8140/3 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] or over-ride the error message?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code adenocarcinoma, intestinal type of the colon 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Do not use code 8144 for intestinal type adenocarcinoma in the colon.
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)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "Ductal carcinoma in situ; 6 mm focus of invasion is a pure mucinous carcinoma that appears to have arisen in the background of encysted papillary carcinoma."
Code to mucinous (8480) since that is the only clearly invasive component of this diagnosis.
According to our pathologist consultant, "Encysted papillary carcinoma is the same thing as intracystic papillry carcinoma, which I think of as an intraductal papillary carcinoma which has greatly expanded the duct to form a cyst-like structure. It generally behaves in an in-situ rather than an invasive fashion. The only clearly invasive component is the mucinous carcinoma, which is what I would code."
Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Will you clarify the use of code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] versus code 27 [excisional biopsy] when there is no clinical description of a tumor and the pathology report describes more than one specimen from surgery performed on the vocal cords? See discussion.
Specimen A is labeled vocal cord biopsy. Specimen B is labeled left true vocal cord nodule. For specimen B the gross portion of the pathology report describes a .5 cm tissue portion. Is the term "nodule" enough information to code this as an excision? Can we code site specific surgery to code 20 or 27?
Code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] based on information from the size and description of the specimen.
Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].
According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home