EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes: Can the AJCC TNM/Stage be used to help code these fields when there is limited text information in the medical record that describes the tumor involvement?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes, this staging information can be used to help code the SEER EOD fields but only if a physician does the TNM/Stage at the time of diagnosis and there is limited text information that describes tumor involvement.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: What code is used to represent the histology "cystadenocarcinoma with multiple foci of high grade anaplastic and undifferentiated sarcoma"? See discussion.
The case was presented at tumor conference. The physicians indicated that the patient would not have the same disease course as a patient with cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary. The physicians advised the use of a mixed histology code. However, there is no appropriate mixed histology code for cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic carcinoma, and sarcoma. It doesn't seem as though these cases should be grouped and analyzed with cases having a single histology of cystadenocarcinoma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8440/34 [cystadenocarcinoma, anaplastic] because a combination code for the specified histologic type does not exist.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate.
Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries?
Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for "anaplastic" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "papillary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid and mucinous subtypes"? See discussion.
Example: Fallopian tube right (salpingectomy): Primary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: Code the Histology field to 8323/3 [adenocarcinoma, mixed cell]. The case is coded using the mixed histology rule A in the Coding Complex Morph Dx's.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
Primary Site: What site code is used to classify a femur biopsy with pathologic diagnosis of "Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET)"? See discussion.
ICD-O-3 lists PNET as being site specific to C71._. The pathology report states "some authors consider both Ewing sarcoma and PNET to be the same histologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 and 23."
Code the Primary Site field to C40.2 [femur] based on Rule H in the ICD-O-3 that states, "Use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not listed in the diagnosis. This topography code should be disregarded if the tumor is known to arise at another site."
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded if radiation to the primary site and/or regional lymph nodes is performed prior to surgery?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields per the information in the pathology report(s). Radiation to the primary site would not affect the status of the lymph node involvement. Radiation to the regional lymph node region may or may not affect the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. However, for these fields code the best information available about the status of the lymph nodes which is reflected in the pathology report(s).
An official website of the United States government
Home