Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20021096 | Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: What codes are used to represent this field for the four bladder cases described in the discussion section that have a combination of grades mentioned in the pathology reports? See discussion. | 1) Final path diagnosis: papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade. Micro description states: High grade, poorly differentiated carcinoma. 2) Well to moderately differentiated papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 1-2/3. 3) Urothelial carcinoma, high grade (poorly differentiated, grade 3 of 3). 4) High grade papillary urothelial carcinoma (papillary transitional cell carcinoma, grade 3 out of 4). |
For cases diagnosed January 2004 and forward: 1) Grade 4. High grade is coded 4. Code the grade stated in the final diagnosis. 2) Grade 3. Grade 1-2/3 is coded 3. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual. 3) Grade 4. Grade 3 of 3 is coded 4. Use the three-grade conversion table in the 2004 SEER manual. 4) Grade 3. "Grade 3 out of 4" is coded 3 and is more precise than "high grade." |
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 | |
|
20021150 | SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion. | 1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case? |
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. | 2002 |
|
20021088 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: SEER Program Code Manual rule #3 on page 11 states "If a new cancer of the same histology is diagnosed in the same site after two months, consider this new cancer a separate primary unless stated to be recurrent or metastatic. Should vulva and vagina be exceptions to rule #3, as are prostate and bladder? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: No. There is no exception for vulva or vagina. 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 | |
|
20021079 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD Fields/Surgery of Primary Site--Abdomen, NOS: What codes are used to represent these fields for a case with a resection of the rectosigmoid and adjacent tumor mass that demonstrated no tumor in the rectosigmoid but extramural to the colon there was an endometrioid adenocarcinoma arising in association with an area of endometriosis (possibly within the pericolic soft tissue or in an ovarian remnant)? | For cases diagnosed in 2003, code to: Primary Site: C76.2 [abdomen, NOS] Histology: 8380/3 [Endometrioid adenocarcinoma] EOD size, extension, lymph node: 999, 99, 9 [Unknown] Surgery of Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment] Scope of Regional LN Surgery: 0 [None] Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites]. |
2002 | |
|
20021174 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion. | For example, if the original diagnosis is "poorly differentiated carcinoma" and the ROS diagnosis is "squamous cell carcinoma," would the morphology code be 8070/33? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).
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 |
|
20021193 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"? | No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. | 2002 | |
|
20021179 | Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure. |
2002 | |
|
20021136 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. | Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.
If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.
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 |
|
20020019 | Reportability: Are the terms "evolving melanoma in situ" or "evolving melanoma" reportable diagnoses? |
According to SEER's melanoma expert, these cases are not reportable because there is no standard definition for the term "evolving" melanoma. |
2002 |