| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20000555 | EOD-Extension--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with "spread to the omentum"? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described. |
Ovary | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000482 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Larynx): When "fixed" is stated for a larynx primary does it specifically have to say that it is the vocal cord that is fixed? Are the terms "fixed" and "immobile" synonymous? Should these cases be coded to 40 rather than 35? See discussion. |
1. The tumor is fixed, the arytenoid on left side is fixed and the right arytenoid is partially fixed. Palpation of the tumor reveals it to be fixed in the larynx. T3 N0 M0 Stage III. 2. Erythema and swelling of right false cord with bulging and immobility. Left cord moves normally. T3 N0 M0 Stage III. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field for both cases to 40 [Tumor limited to larynx WITH vocal cord fixation]. Code 35 [Impaired vocal cord mobility] implies that mobility is diminished in strength and/or quality but is not rigid. Impaired mobility is a T2 tumor. Because the second case is T3, the physician implies he/she is using the term "immobility" to describe complete fixation. |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2000 |
|
|
20000418 | 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. |
Melanoma | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000431 | Surgery Fields--Multiple sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the following surgical procedures?
1. Tongue, NOS - Hemiglossectomy with lymph node dissection 2. Choroid - Eye enucleation 3. Vulva, NOS - Vulvectomy with bilateral lymph node dissection 4. Gallbladder - Cholecystectomy 5. Lung - Laminectomy with partial removal of tumor |
For cases diagnosed 1/1/03 and later: 1. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3. 2. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 41. 3. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40 and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 3. 4. Code Surgery of Primary Site to 40. 5. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 4. |
N/A | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000428 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How do you distinguish between clinical extension codes of 10, 13, 14, and 20 for cases with a benign prostate per digital rectal exam that appear localized after TURP/prostatectomy? Can the clinical extension code of 10 be used if the term "microscopic carcinoma" is noted in the pathology report without also mentioning "foci" or "Stage A" for clinically inapparent tumors? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
When the prostate feels benign and the cancer is found incidentally at the time of the microscopic exam, code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [number of foci or % of involved tissue not specified]. Code as 13 (less than or equal to 5%) or 14 (greater than 5%) if percentage involved is given in the tissue resected. If the path report states "solitary focus of carcinoma" without mentioning the total amount of tissue resected, code extension to 13. If there is more than one focus, code extension to 10. Don't assign a code of 20 unless the tumor is clinically apparent. |
Prostate | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000552 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: If the patient has inflammatory carcinoma of the breast, is the tumor size coded as 998 even though we have a tumor size? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more of breast; inflammatory carcinoma] for all inflammatory breast carcinomas.
These cases have a worse prognosis because of the dermal lymphatic invasion. Half of the inflammatory breast carcinomas will have no palpable mass. |
Breast | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000533 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion. |
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy. If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized. |
Prostate | N/A | 2000 |
|
|
20000549 | 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). |
N/A | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20000436 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp"? See discussion. |
Is "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code the Histology field to 8261/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma]. In describing colon polyps, papillary and villous are equivalent terms. 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. |
Colon | Histology | 2000 |
|
|
20000277 | Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. | Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant. | We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. |
N/A | N/A | 2000 |
Home
