Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031204 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for cryosurgery of the breast? | For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For cryosurgery alone, without a pathology specimen, assign site-specific surgery code 19 [Local tumor destruction, NOS]. Cryosurgery, cryotherapy or cryoablation uses extreme cold to destroy the tumor cells. If a specimen is sent to pathology use code 20 [Partial mastectomy, NOS] rather than code 19. If cryosurgery is followed by further surgery, do not use code 19. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20031082 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031174 | 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031052 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description. |
Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)? |
Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias. |
2003 |
|
|
20031091 | EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031151 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a "focus of in situ"? See Description. | For example: needle bx diagnosis is "tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca." The lumpectomy path states "single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca." Can size be coded 001? | Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection. | 2003 |
|
|
20031155 | CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description. | "Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex." Does this mean that there is extension into the apex? | 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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward: Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension. The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion "has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined." Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes]. |
2003 |
|
|
20031145 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. | Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. | 2003 |
|
|
20031123 | Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated] for cases diagnosed in 2003 or later? | For prostate cases diagnosed in 2003 and forward: convert Gleason score 7 to grade 3 [poorly differentiated]. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
