Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031035 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Does the presence of sideroblasts on a bone marrow biopsy confirm a diagnosis of refractory anemia with sideroblasts? | Final path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy:
I. Hypercellular marrow for age with trilinear hyperplasia. II. Decreased iron stores with decreased sideroblasts.
Comment: Although the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity, it is most consistent with an early stage myelodysplastic syndrome which would best be considered refractory anemia at this point.
In this case the percentage of sideroblasts is not stated. Would the path diagnosis of "decreased sideroblasts" along with the path comment of "refractory anemia" indicate that this case should be coded to 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts]? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
For the hematologic diseases, do not accession the case unless there is a definite positive diagnosis. A positive diagnosis, such as "Refractory anemia" must be stated in order to code that diagnosis. Other words associated with the positive diagnosis, such as "sideroblasts" are NOT to be used alone to assume a diagnosis.
Decreased sideroblasts does not make a diagnosis of Refractory anemia with sideroblasts. The sideroblasts for 9982/3 [Refractory anemia with sideroblasts] are characteristic in rings, and are INCREASED to make the diagnosis.
Based on the information provided, this case is not reportable. The final path diagnosis is not a reportable disease. The comment further states that the overall picture is not diagnostic of a specific entity. Therefore, it should not be reported at this point.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
2003 |
|
|
20031195 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is this field coded to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy for elevated PSA] when it is unknown whether or not a TRUS was done? See Description. | Patient was admitted for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. H&P states that patient had elevated PSA. PE showed benign feeling prostate. Stage is clinical T1c. There is no mention of whether or not TRUS had been done. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: EOD extension code 15 is correct for this case example. When there is no other documentation available, the AJCC stage may be used to determine extension. | 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 |
|
|
20031059 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Description. | A breast cancer patient had a FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, the number of Regional Nodes Positive and Examined include all nodes examined by the pathologist, unless there is disease progression. In other words, these fields are cumulative. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 97 for number positive and 95 for number examined. 1 & 2. Assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Case example: Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07. | 2003 |
|
|
20031130 | Primary site--Melanoma: Should melanoma of the nipple be coded to C50.0 [Nipple] or C44.5 [Skin of the trunk]? | Code to C44.5 [skin of trunk]. External melanoma is an epidermal malignancy, beginning in melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis. C50.0 excludes skin of breast. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031111 | EOD-Extension--Lung: For a left upper lobe lung tumor that extends across the fissure into the left lower lobe, should this field be coded to 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] or 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Assign EOD extension code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung]. EOD extension code 10 applies to a single tumor within one lung, even one that crosses over a fissure into another lobe. EOD extension code 10 is not correct if the tumor extends to the pleura, or if there is atelectasis, obstructive pneumonitis or malignant pleural effusion. Code 77 is incorrect because that is a separate tumor nodule in a different lobe. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031016 | Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Will you clarify the use of code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] versus code 27 [excisional biopsy] when there is no clinical description of a tumor and the pathology report describes more than one specimen from surgery performed on the vocal cords? See discussion. |
Specimen A is labeled vocal cord biopsy. Specimen B is labeled left true vocal cord nodule. For specimen B the gross portion of the pathology report describes a .5 cm tissue portion. Is the term "nodule" enough information to code this as an excision? Can we code site specific surgery to code 20 or 27? |
Code 20 [local tumor excision, NOS] based on information from the size and description of the specimen. |
2003 |
|
|
20031129 | Primary Site: How is this field coded for cholangiocarcinoma involving the intrapancreatic bile duct? | Code the primary site as C24.0 [Extrahepatic bile duct, includes Common bile duct] for a cholagiocarcinoma originating in the common bile duct. A portion of the common bile duct is within the head of the pancreas: The intrapancreatic segment of the common bile duct. | 2003 | |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20031207 | Hormone Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is hormonal therapy coded for myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS? See Description. | Patient with myelodysplastic syndrome refused chemotherapy and was treated with high dose steroids. Patient also received Rituxan. | Hormones, such as glucocorticoids and androgens, are generally of little if any benefit to patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, according to the NCI PDQ. Do not code steroids as treatment in the example above. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
