Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion.
Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?
Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.
For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a "simple mastectomy" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?
Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].
EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.
1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?
2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.
2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion.
Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation.
The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma with a mucinous component, the mucinous component is less than 50%"? See discussion.
For mucinous only, the tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous to be coded to the specific histology.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Because the mucinous component involves less than 50% of the tumor, the histology is not coded to mucinous. For mucinous only, the tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, to be coded to the specific 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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion.
Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the "apex" information or the "cT1c" information?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: The path report provides a size for both the Paget disease and the underlying intraductal component in the breast. Should we assume the Paget disease to be invasive and code the size of the primary tumor to that invasive component? See discussion.
For example, path diagnosis for resection gave the size of the Paget disease as 1 mm and the size of the underlying intraductal tumor as 4 cm. Should size for this breast case be coded to 040 or 003, less than 3 mm.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 040 [4 cm], the size of the larger underlying intraductal tumor. Paget disease is classified according to the size of the underlying in situ or invasive tumor. Paget with an underlying in situ tumor is staged as in situ to match the AJCC classification of this disease process.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home