System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 05/24/2025 04:04 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031192 EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description.

Examples:

1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.

2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.

Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement.

 2003
20031196 EOD-Pathological Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsy findings differ from prostatectomy findings? See Description. Needle biopsy of prostate clearly states cancer arising in the apex. Clinical extension would then be 33. After prostatectomy, the path report states only one lobe involved with cancer and the apex was negative for cancer. Would the pathological extension then be coded to a 20 to truly reflect the surgical findings? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Combine the information from the needle biopsy and the prostatectomy and code the pathologic EOD to 34 [Extending to the prostatic apex]. The case example above is very similar to Example 4 on page 2 of the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines. 2003
20031203 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should this field be coded to 45 [wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS], 46 [with margins between 1 and 2 cm], or 47 [with margins greater than 2 cm] for a skin primary diagnosed in 2003 when margins are stated exactly as 2 cm? Use code 46 [Wide excision...with margins more than 1 cm and less than 2 cm] when margins are exactly 2 cm. 2003
20031029 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.

Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.

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
20031202 Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a surgery titled "Parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection"? See Description. If the operative report is not titled "total parotidectomy," can we assume that less than total parotidectomy was done? Can we assume that "facial nerve dissection" and "facial nerve monitoring" are other ways of stating "facial nerve spared"?

Use the best information available to determine whether or not all of the parotid has been removed. It is important to read the entire operative report and review the content of the pathology report. The Op report will usually include wording about how much was removed, and this can be confirmed by the path report. Do not make assumptions about the extent of the surgery based solely on the title used on the operative report.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code 30 [less than total parotidectomy] can be used when the parotid is not totally removed, but the exact type of partial parotidectomy cannot be determined. "Facial nerve monitoring" and "Facial nerve dissection" are synonymous with "facial nerve sparing."

 2003
20031128 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.

 2003
20031067 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?" See Description. A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET." Neither are compatible with site.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva).

Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.

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
20031171 Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.

The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.

 2003
20031125

Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.

Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?

Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.

This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].

 2003
20031012 EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion. Breast case described clinically as a "breast mass and nodal metastases" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement.

 2003