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.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus"? See discussion.
Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. "Focus" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.
We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of tumor.
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 Extension--Prostate: Does capsular invasion (code 32) take priority over apex extension (code 34) on prostate primaries? See discussion.
On prostatectomy, adenocarcinoma involves left apex and also left mid lobe where it focally invades capsule. Do we code extension to 34 - the highest numerical code, or to 32 to capture the capsular invasion? Do codes 33 and 34 represent a subset of code 31, and would code 32 represent greater tumor involvement?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.
Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are "subsets" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion.
Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Would a lymphoma involving mesenteric and retroperitoneal nodes (both site code C77.2) be coded to extension 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I], based on the fact that while more than one "chain" is involved only one "region" is involved?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of diaphram]. The AJCC lists mesenteric as a core nodal region, but does not list retroperitoneal lymph nodes as a part of this region, so retroperitoneal is a separate region.
The EOD staging scheme for lymphoma uses lymph node REGIONS as the criteria for assigning the extension code. Use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual as the definitive source for classifying lymph node regions, not the ICD-O-3. If it is a separate LN region per the AJCC, it is coded in the EOD as a separate region.
According to the AJCC curator, the nodal regions are defined in Kaplan's book on Hodgkin disease. Bilateral cervical, or axillary, or hilar, or pelvic, or inguinal nodes count as two regions. Mediastinal and para-aortic lymph nodes count as one region regardless of laterality as they are centrally located. A large mediastinal mass constitutes one region involved regardless of the size.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.
For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.
An official website of the United States government
Home