Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields?
Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.
Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Explain the difference between code 30 and code 45.
Code 30 [Biopsy of primary tumor followed by a gross excision of the lesion]
Code 45 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS. Margins MUST be microscopically negative.]
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code 30 represents a biopsy or excision in which the margins of excision are less than 1 cm or the margins are unknown. Code 45 represents a wide excision in which it is known that the margins of excision are greater than 1 cm.
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.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate.
Surgery of Primary Site--Cervix: How is this field coded for a cervix primary when a biopsy removes the entire tumor? See discussion.
Path from biopsy shows "severe dysplasia--CIN III" and the report from an endocervical curettage (ECC) is "chronic cervicitis"?
For cases diagnosed 1998 and later: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 25 [Dilatation and curettage; endocervical curettage (for in situ only)].
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of "long-standing pneumonia," is that synonymous with "pneumonitis" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Is "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.
Should "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes be assumed to be direct contiguous extension of the primary tumor or does it represent lymph node involvement?
If it is direct extension, should we code it as 70 in the extension field? If not, should we code it as 2 in the lymph node involvement field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 70 [mediastinum, direct extension].
An official website of the United States government
Home