Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021207 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: How do you code this field when the gross description on the pathology report states "nodal tissue is matted" but only 1/18 lymph nodes is found to contain micrometastatsis per the microscopic description of the report? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 1 [Micrometastasis] because the matted nodal tissue was found to contain only one node with micrometastasis when examined microscopically. Coding priority is given to the microscopic description over the gross description. |
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 | |
|
|
20021171 | Date Therapy Initiated: How would you estimate the date treatment began for a patient who was treated elsewhere and seen only on an outpatient basis at the current facility? See discussion. | July 19th: Retromolar trigone primary was diagnosed. August 8th note states, "Pt is not a surgical candidate due to multiple medical co-morbidities." Sept 19th note states, "Per Tumor Board, pt has been undergoing radiation for her head and neck cancer." The exact starting date for radiation is not specified.
In the SEER Program Code Manual it states that "In the absence of an exact date of treatment, the date of admission for that hospitalization during which the first cancer directed therapy was begun is an acceptable entry." |
If possible, review the radiation treatment summary and outpatient records at the treating facility. If the date treatment began is not stated, look for the completion date and number of treatments, and calculate the first date of treatment.
If the date radiation started cannot be found or calculated, code the month as 09 for the example provided. The determination was made in August NOT to treat with surgery. We know that there was treatment in September. |
2002 |
|
|
20021053 | EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion. | 1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca. 2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas. 3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca. 4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]? 5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?) 6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?) |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to: 1) 10 2) 10 3) 10 4) 99 5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76 6) 85 |
2002 |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20021022 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."
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 | |
|
|
20020057 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: What code is used to represent the histology "radial growth phase: melanoma, superficial spreading type; vertical growth phase: epithelioid type"? See discussion. | Can the "growth phase" be used to code histology? If so, would the histology be epithelioid cell melanoma (8771/3)? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8771/3 [epithelioid cell melanoma]. The "growth phase" information in this case describes the horizontal spread and the "invasive" or vertical growth through the layers of skin.
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 |
|
|
20020012 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma"? See discussion. | Is the histology coded to the combination code of 8522/3 (ductal and lobular) or to the invasive component 8520/3 (lobular)? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Assuming ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma are present in a single tumor, code 8520/3 [Infiltrating lobular carcinoma, NOS]. Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, the single tumor invasive and in situ carcinoma module, start and stop at rule H9 and code the invasive histology. |
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 |
|
|
20020039 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).
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 |
An official website of the United States government
