Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Lymph Node fields: How do you code these fields if a pt has multiple lymph nodes surgeries at different times? See discussion.
Example: 1/01/03 Biopsy of 1 sentinel lymph node: positive for metastasis. 1/10/03 Modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection: ductal carcinoma with 8 neg lymph nodes.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 7. Code EOD Lymph Nodes field to 6. Code EOD Pathologic Number of Reg LN Positive and Examined fields to 01 and 09 respectively.
For the Scope of Reg LN Surgery use the highest applicable code number if more than one Scope of Reg LN Surgery was performed. The EOD lymph node fields are cumulative and count all lymph nodes removed during the diagnostic and first course treatment procedures.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion.
Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, "a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.
EOD-Extension--Bladder: Both papillary transitional cell ca in situ and sessile (flat) transitional cell ca in situ are diagnosed simultaneously in the bladder. We code the higher histology (8130/2). For extension, do we use the code that corresponds to the histology (01), or to the higher extension code (06)?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 06 [sessile (flat) (solid) carcinoma in situ], the higher extension code.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: If the grade given for the primary site is from a provisional diagnosis and the grade given for a metastatic site is from a final diagnosis, should we follow the SEER rule that says to code the grade as stated in the final diagnosis (e.g., Provisional diagnosis: High grade papillary serous carcinoma of ovary. Final dx: poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in a caval lymph node)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 4 [High grade] from the examination of the ovary (primary site). Do not code grade from a metastatic site.
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)].
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"?
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "duct carcinoma, colloid type"? See discussion.
Do we use 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] or 8523/3 [duct carcinoma] mixed with other types of carcinomas?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] per Rule 4. The lesion is colloid type of ductal carcinoma, not ductal carcinoma mixed with colloid carcinoma.
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.
Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion.
Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.
An official website of the United States government
Home