Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021141 | EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion. | The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.
Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case. |
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 |
|
|
20021113 | Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Pancreas: Should an embolization of liver metastasis for a pancreas primary be coded as treatment? | Code "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) to a metastatic site in Surgical procedure of Other Site. Assign code 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed]. This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005. |
2002 | |
|
|
20020069 | Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.
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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021094 | EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: If the patient received chemo, should "bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy" be coded as involved lymph nodes in the EOD lymph node involvement field for a testicular primary treated with an orchiectomy that rendered a path diagnosis of "seminoma confined to the testicle"? See discussion. | Per an orchiectomy path diagnosis a seminoma was confined to the testicle. The only other workup, other than a scrotal ultrasound, was a staging CT scan that revealed bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy in abdomen and pelvis, as well as mediastinal adenopathy. There was also a peripheral pulmonary nodule. No final clinical diagnosis or stage was provided in the chart. Following the orchiectomy the patient was treated with chemo. Should we also have coded distant site lung involvement? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown] because "adenopathy" is not used to code lymph node involvement. The physician varied from the usual treatment for a localized testicular carcinoma, which is an orchiectomy. The physician proceeded immediately to chemotherapy as further treatment. It is not clear whether the decision to treat with chemo was based on the nodes and/or lung being involved.
Search the record for the physician's opinion regarding distant metastasis. Do not code distant involvement based on a peripheral pulmonary nodule seen on CT without further proof. If no further information is available, code the EOD-Extension field to 99. |
2002 |
|
|
20021087 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented when a1998 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord is followed by a 1999 diagnosis of in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (called "recurrent" by the clinician), and in 2001 there is another invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (no statement of recurrence)? Would your answer be any different if no statement of "recurrent" had been made in 1999? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code this case as two primaries, an invasive true vocal cord primary in 1998 and another invasive true vocal cord primary in 2001.
If there had been no statement of recurrence for the 1999 in situ diagnosis and the 1999 diagnosis was more than two months following the 1998 diagnosis, this case would be coded as three primaries.
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 | |
|
|
20021031 | Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. | In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? | Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. | 2002 |
|
|
20020015 | Histology (Pre-2001): For cases diagnosed before 1/1/01, what code is used to represent the histology "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2001, code the Histology field to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] for "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma". | 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 |
|
|
20021006 | EOD-Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: If a solitary plasmacytoma originates in the right tonsil and extends to the left tonsil, vallecula and hypopharynx, is extension still coded to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only] for all cases of solitary plasmacytoma. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
