Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Are diagnoses of "infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" and "duct carcinoma, mucinous type" both coded to the histology code of 8523/3?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code "Infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" to 8523/3 [Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] according to the instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology in Appendix C of the 2004 SEER manual. Assign code 8523/3 when the diagnosis is duct carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma. Look for "and" or "mixed" in the diagnosis.
Code the Histology field for a "ductal carcinoma, mucinous type" to 8480/3 [Mucinous carcinoma].
The instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology are to code the specific type if the diagnosis is "Duct carcinoma, _____ type."
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-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Lung: How do you code these fields for clinically positive lymph nodes when the result of neoadjuvant treatment is that the lymph nodes are pathologically negative? See discussion.
The pt presents with "mediastinal adenopathy" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?
Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 2 [Mediastinal, NOS]. Code the EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 00/10. You will not have a problem with the SEER Edits. The EOD field is coded using clinical and pathologic information. All information gathered within four months of the date of diagnosis (in the absence of disease progression) or through completion of surgery(ies) can be used to code EOD. The clinically positive nodes justify the radiation therapy.
Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries?
Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034].
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.
PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.
Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: If a patient presents with two separate lesions on the left cheek (i.e., left lateral cheek and left upper cheek) that both are histologically confirmed to be superficial spreading melanoma on the same day, is this coded as one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home