Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031188 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How would this field be coded, using the revised and expanded breast code, for a lesion described as "1.3 cm infiltrating ductal carcinoma, associated DCIS?" | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code size of primary tumor as 013. The phrasing suggests that the infiltrating ductal carcinoma measures 1.3 cm. DCIS is also present, but no size mentioned. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031083 | Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when the only description in the pathology report is "non-high grade?" | Code "non-high grade" as 9 [unknown]. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031177 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description. | Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: "Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of 43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment." Path comment: "There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as "V2," indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion." |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node. When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown]. |
2003 |
|
|
20031141 | Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. | For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. | 2003 |
|
|
20031137 | Primary Site--Pancreas: Should tumors with the histology "islet cell carcinoma" be coded C25.4 [Islet of Langerhans] even though the tumor location is stated to be in head of pancreas? | Assign code C25.4 [Islets of Langerhans...Endocrine pancreas]. Islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas is a tumor of the endocrine pancreas. Although Islet cells are present throughout the pancreas, the best code is C25.4 to distinguish endocrine from exocrine cancers. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031018 | 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. |
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 |
|
|
20031182 | Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description. | A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD. | Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002. | 2003 |
|
|
20031017 | Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: Does code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions; autopsy only case] or code 1 [ Cancer-directed surgery not recommended] have priority when coding this field for extensive tumors not surgically treated because of existing comorbidities? See discussion. | Example: Patient has Stage IVA carcinoma of the tongue. The physician states that patient is not felt to be a good surgical candidate secondary to multiple medical frailties. Patient is treated with beam radiation. In this case, how do we code Reason for No Site Specific Surgery? Do we use code 2 because surgery was contraindicated due to co-existing medical conditions or do we use code 1 because the tumor is very extensive and surgery would probably not be done anyway? |
SEER has not established a priority for assigning the Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site codes. Assign the code which best describes the reason surgery was not performed. Example: Assign code 2, Contraindicated due to patient risk factors. According to the physician, this is the reason that surgery was not performed. |
2003 |
|
|
20031146 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. | Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
