EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Uvula): Is a stage T2 tumor described on the physical exam as an "ulcerated mass occupying uvula midline soft palate, and extending into the right soft palate. It does not extend into the tonsil area nor into the retromolar trigone" coded to 30 [localized, NOS] or 40 [tumor crosses midline]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD-extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. This is mucosal spread (since there is no muscle in the uvula). Soft palate and uvula are handled as a single site, and extension from uvula to soft palate is not addressed in EOD.
Radiation: How would this field be coded for treatment with quadramet [radioactive samarium]? See Description.
Paitent is receiving quadramet for treatment of lung metastases.
Code Quadramet in the RX Summ-Radiation field as 3 [Radioisotopes]. Quadramet is a radioisotope used to palliate bone pain. The instructions in the SEER manual state: "Record all radiation that is given, even if it is palliative."
Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: What code is used to represent the histology "Ewing's Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET)"? See Description.
A comment on one path report states "some authors consider both Ewing's & PNET to be the same biologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 & 22." The pathologists at our children's hospital agree with this statement and contend that the two should have the same histologic code.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.
Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?
Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?
Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.
Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.
Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract 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): What code is used to represent the histology "PD infiltrating duct ca with focal sarcomatoid pleomorphic features?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8500/33 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. "Features" is a term from the list indicating a majority of the tumor, however; in this case "features" is modified by "focal" which does not indicate a majority of the tumor.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is the removal of the left tonsil during a bilateral tonsillectomy for a right tonsil primary coded in the surgery of the primary site field to 27 [Excisional bx], 30 [Pharyngectomy, NOS], 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy; bilateral tonsillectomy], or to code 2 under the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field? See discussion.
Our notes document a 1/99 SEER e-mail stating that tonsillectomy/tonsillectomy with wide excision would be code to 31. Is this still correct? Some of our coders felt that code 27 or 30 would be more appropriate.
Is the removal of the contralateral tonsil incidental removal or do we code it under Surgery of Other Regional Site, Distant Site, or Distant Lymph Nodes? If it is coded, would 5 be the correct code?
Assign code 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy, bilateral tonsillectomy]. Do not code removal of the contralateral tonsil under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. Surgery to remove regional tissue with the primary site during the same procedure is coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].
Grade, Differentiation--Hematopoietic: Is this field coded to 6 [B-cell] from a flow cytometry that specifies the percentage of B-cells that exist within the percentage of lymphoid cells in the bone marrow biopsy? See Description.
Bone marrow biopsy, Final path diagnosis: consistent with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Comment: flow cytometry analysis was performed on bone marrow aspirate. The gated population of lymphoid cells comprises approximately 19% of total nucleated cells. Of these, 53% are B-cells which express CD19, CD22. These findings are consistent with the above diagnosis.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, assign code 6, B-cell. The flow cytometry analysis confirms B-cell.
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