Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021052 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? 1) Stricture of the common bile duct 2) Common bile duct is narrowed 3) Common bile duct is obstructed 4) Common bile duct dilation 5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct 6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021178 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "poorly differentiated invasive transitional cell carcinoma with extensive squamous and focal glandular differentiation"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8120/33 [transitional cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The ICD-O-3 does not have a separate code for transitional cell carcinoma with squamous and/or glandular differentiation.
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 | |
|
|
20021124 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion. |
1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored. 2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples. Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma. 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20021023 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion. |
For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field. Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown. |
2002 |
|
|
20021002 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis"? See discussion. | SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, "Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. "Comedocarcinoma" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. "Comedo type" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. "Comedo necrosis" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all."
Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [ductal carcinoma in situ].
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 |
|
|
20021117 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: Is the prostatic urethra a new primary for a case with a history of recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer that was subsequently diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the prostatic urethra and had a subsequent clinical diagnosis of "refractory bladder carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If the histology of the bladder primary is "transitional cell carcinoma" or "papillary transitional cell carcinoma," do not code the prostatic urethra as a new primary. This is probably a case of intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the original tumor, rather than separate primaries. The clinical diagnosis supports this view.
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 | |
|
|
20021017 | Measured Thickness--Melanoma: Can in situ melanoma cases have "depth of invasion" coded to something other than 999? See discussion. | Biopsy of the left arm: Melanoma, 0.2mm in thickness. The in situ component extends to a peripheral margin. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Measured Thickness (depth) field to 020 [0.2 mm] for this case.
In situ disease can have a depth of invasion because the surface epithelium can be of varying depths without the melanoma breaking through the basement membrane. |
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 | |
|
|
20021162 | Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion. |
Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients. |
Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
