Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021165 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion. | Which size should be used for these examples? 1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound. 2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples. 1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound. 2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. |
2002 |
|
|
20021047 | Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code "random bladder biopsies" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is "focal carcinoma in situ"? | Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder. | 2002 | |
|
|
20021008 | Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Bladder: What codes are used to represent these fields for a deeply invasive bladder primary treated initially with a TURP (for suspected prostate extension that turns out to be pathologically negative) and a TURB that is subsequently treated with a cystoprostatectomy? | For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code: 1. Surgery of Primary Site field to 60 [Radical cystectomy (male only)] because the cystoprostatectomy was the most extensive (definitive) surgery performed to the primary site. 2. Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites] based on the TURP. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021078 | Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, "Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall"? | Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site. | 2002 | |
|
|
20021131 | EOD-Extension: If extension/metastasis is found within 4 months of diagnosis, but after first course of cancer-directed therapy has ended, should that involvement be excluded when coding the EOD-extension field? See discussion. | Example: Spinal drop metastasis was diagnosed within 4 months of the initial diagnosis of a localized astrocytoma, but after treatment with surgery and XRT was completed. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Do not include the spinal metastasis because it was diagnosed after the extent of disease was established. If metastasis was not present at diagnosis, and not discovered during the original metastatic work-up, it is progression of disease. |
2002 |
|
|
20021187 | Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable? |
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order: 1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable. 2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis. 3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable. |
2002 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20020030 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. | How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.
2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned. |
2002 |
|
|
20021139 | Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. | Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. | For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. | 2002 |
|
|
20021089 | Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: When ovaries are not found on a resection or if the ovaries removed are negative for malignancy, but the clinician refers to the adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as being an "ovarian" primary, should the primary site be coded as ovary, pelvic peritoneum or unknown? See discussion. | Example 1: Patient has a history of a BSO without an indication that it was done for malignancy. Pt has a resection. No ovarian tissue found. No site is mentioned in the pathology report. The clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary.
Example 2: Resected ovaries are negative. No specific site of origin is mentioned in the path. Again, the clinician refers to the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in the pelvis as an "ovarian" primary. |
Code the Primary Site for both examples to peritoneum [C48.2]. When the physician refers to a case as "ovarian" even though the ovaries are negative or when the histology is an ovarian histology, such as papillary serous ca, the primary site should be coded to the peritoneum. Code the Primary Site to where it appears the disease is arising. | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
