Surgery of Primary Site/First Course Treatment--Liver: If disease progression is so rapid that the initial therapy plan is changed before patient receives any therapy, would "no therapy" be the first course? See discussion.
Patient was diagnosed with liver cancer on 8/23 and on 9/6 a hepatectomy was recommended. However, patient was hospitalized on 9/19 with ascites. Patient underwent embolization instead of a hepatectomy during that admission.
Code the "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) in Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 10 [local tumor destruction, NOS].
The embolization is coded as first course of therapy for this case because it seems that this patient was not adequately staged until 9/19 -- there is no indication on this case of the stage of disease in August or early September. Furthermore, no treatment was started before the embolization. Therefore, the ascites is not "progression of disease" in this case -- it is taken into account as part of the initial stage of disease.
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
First Course Treatment--All Sites: The patient has undergone part of the planned first course of treatment when a metastatic deposit is identified. If the patient continues with the planned first course of treatment, should the modalities of treatment given after the metastatic deposit is discovered be included in the coding of the first course of cancer-directed treatment fields?
Yes, those modalities should be counted as part of first course of cancer-directed treatment if the patient continues with the planned first course. For example, if patient has the originally planned type of surgery, radiation, or drug protocol, then code the given treatment as first course.
Caution: It is not a change in the treatment plan if the drugs are changed but the action of the drugs remains the same. This is still first course. However, if the treatment is changed from a chemotherapy drug to a hormonal drug following the discovery of the mets, do not code the hormonal therapy as first course.
Primary Site: How do we code the primary site for a malignancy that occurs in parenchyma located in an ectopic site? See discussion.
1. Patient presented with a subcutaneous nodule in right axilla. Pathologic impression by initial and reviewing pathologists is that the lesion represents a breast adenocarcinoma arising in ectopic mammary parenchyma. Subsequent breast biopsies were negative.
2. Patient presented with right branchial cleft cyst. The pathologist states the cyst is a primary thyroid adenocarcinoma arising in an ectopic focus of thyroid tissue. The subsequent total thyroidectomy is negative.
Code the primary site to the location of the malignancy.
1. Code the Primary Site field to C76.1 [Axilla NOS].
2. Code the Primary Site field to C10.4 [Branchial cleft].
Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"?
Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.
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."
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How do you code extension for a supraglottic larynx primary with "pre-epigolottic space" invasion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue."
Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion.
1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.
2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Both tumors are reportable to SEER.
1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].
2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
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.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?
For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
EOD-Lymph Nodes: If chemotherapy or radiation is given prior to the excision of an involved lymph node, should the size of the metastasis within the lymph node be coded from the subsequent surgical pathology report? See discussion.
For several sites, the size of the metastasis in an involved lymph node is integrated into the EOD-Lymph Node field. Should the size of the metastasis mentioned on the pathology report be ignored if the patient received radiation or chemotherapy prior to having the lymph node removed?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Record the size of a lymph node metastasis described in the pathology report for cases that had pre-surgical treatment. However, if both the pre-treatment and post-treatment size of the lymph node metastases are available, use the larger size when coding the EOD-Lymph Node field.
EOD-Extension--Lung: How do you code extension for a lung tumor described on bronchoscopy as "obstructing the RUL and intruding into the right bronchus intermedius. Small tumor nodules distally in midline of anterior trachea wall"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because the tumor nodules are discontinuous from the primary tumor.
An official website of the United States government
Home