An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
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.
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].
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion.
If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. "
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
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.
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.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Should an invasive malignancy following an in situ malignancy by more than two months be a new primary? Why? See discussion.
Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. These are two primaries.
In situ cancers are not included in SEER incidence rates. Incidence rates must correlate with mortality rates.
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 Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
An official website of the United States government
Home
