Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021142 | Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? | Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. | 2002 | |
|
|
20021143 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. | How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.
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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021146 | Primary Site--Lymphoma: Is the primary site likely to be extranodal for a lymphoma that presents in an extranodal site and lymph nodes which are regional for that site? Is the primary site also likely to be extranodal if an extranodal site and lymph nodes are excised? See discussion. | Example: Work-up included a negative CXR. A CT showed multiple dilated loops of small bowel consistent with obstruction and nodular prominence at the base of bladder. Laparotomy with resection of small bowel and multiple biopsies of enlarged mesentric lymph nodes performed. Final path diagnosis: Lymphoma in a "mesenteric mass" and in "small bowel." There was no mention of lymph nodes in the final diagnosis and the detailed micro described the mesenteric mass as just adipose tissue replaced by lymphoma. However, the gross for that specimen states 4 lymph nodes were found in the fat. The small bowel micro described an ulcerated lesion of the small bowel extending into muscularis. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C17.9 [small bowel] for the example. When an extranodal organ and that organ's regional nodes are involved, the extranodal site is most likely the primary, unless there is extension from the regional nodes to the organ. If the primary site cannot be determined for a lymphoma diagnosed in both a nodal and extranodal site, code to C77.9 [lymph nodes NOS]. 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20021022 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021003 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms "intramucosal extension," "in situ component extending to," or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021031 | Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. | In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? | Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. | 2002 |
|
|
20020069 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021063 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: What code is used to represent this field when a path report from a lymph node biopsy or dissection describes lymph node "portions" or "fragments"? See discussion. | 1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?) 2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?) 3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?) |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The total number of lymph nodes examined is recorded in EOD-Num of Reg LN Examined. If the number of actual lymph nodes represented by the "fragments" or "portions" cannot be determined, assign code 96, 97, or 98 as appropriate. 1) Based on the terminology "four portions of lymph node (singular)" code to 01 despite "dissection" terminology. 2) Code to 97 based on "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" terminology and procedure identified as dissection. 3) Code to 97 based on statement of "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" for biopsy plus dissection. |
2002 |
|
|
20021042 | Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion. |
According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:
1) To preserve ovarian function. 2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone. |
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given. |
2002 |
|
|
20021173 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion. | The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].
The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.
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. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
