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.
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.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for "B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description.
Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification.
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.
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.
Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion.
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor.
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3.
Histology (Pre-2007): Is 8524 [lobular mixed with other carcinoma] or 8490 [signet ring cell carcinoma] used to represent a diagnosis of "infiltrating lobular with signet ring features?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to January 1, 2004:
According to our pathologist consultant, for this specific case, code to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma].
Our pathologist states: "Signet ring cell carcinoma is most often a variant of lobular carcinoma (as it appears to be in this case - it is less frequently a variant of ductal), and I think it's appropriate to code it as such. Coding to lobular would also be ok, though that would lose the special feature of the signet ring cells. I would rather not code to 8524, since it is not really a mix of lobular and something else."
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Is this field coded to the size of a hypoechoic mass identified on a TRUS when there is no tumor size from the prostatectomy specimen?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ultrasound measurement of a malignancy can be used to code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. Information on tumor size taken from imaging/radiographic techniques has low priority, just above physical examination.
Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description.
Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection.
Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.
A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home