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.
Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms "lytic" or "lysis" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition?
Although the term "lytic lesion" is often used to describe bone lesions and "tumor lysis" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words.
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.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, "extending around" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and "encasing" the portahepatis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms "extending around" nor "encasing" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.
Histology (Pre-2007): Can adenocarcinoma in either a villous or tubulovillous polyp or adenoma be coded as histology for sites other than colon or rectum? See discussion.
When adenocarcinoma of the endometrium arises in a villoglandular polyp is the histology coded as 8263/3?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Histology codes 8261 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma] and 8263 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma] are used for non-colorectal sites when the cancer arises in a polyp.
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.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.
ACR website:
Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.
Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology of "invasive ductal carcinoma and in situ ductal carcinoma, cribriform type"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma] unless the combination is ductal and lobular.
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.
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.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a groin mass excision containing 4 lymph nodes for a Kaposi sarcoma case that presented with multiple skin lesions?
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 99 99 for Kaposi cases that present systemically and for those that present in more than one site (which includes cases with more than one skin subsite involved at diagnosis). There are no "regional" lymph nodes for such cases. This represents a majority of currently diagnosed Kaposi cases. However, for localized Kaposi cases, you can count the number of regional lymph nodes positive and examined if the primary site selected has a regional lymph node chain(s) associated with it (e.g., soft palate, hard palate, or a skin subsite).
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the groin mass excision in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed; Non-primary surgical resection to other site(s), unknown if whether the site(s) is regional or distant].
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the following phrases: "case staged as C" and "case staged as T3a"? See discussion.
Example: A prostatectomy was done on 6/29. The physician staged the case as a "C" on 7/2 and as T3a on 8/6. It appears the physician is interpreting the following pathology information as unilateral extracapsular extension: "The tumor on the right extends to the inked surface of the gland. In this area the capsule appears absent." Should pathologic extension be coded to unilateral extracapsular extension [42]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the best information available to stage this case. In this case, the best information is the physician's statement that the case is stage T3a. Without any additional information, the EOD-Extension field is coded to 42 [Unilateral extracapsular extension (pT3a)] on the basis of the T3a stage by the MD. When there is a conflict between different staging systems, default to the AJCC stage.
An official website of the United States government
Home