Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can "Fuhrman nuclear grade" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.
Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.
If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?
For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to "unknown or not applicable" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. .
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "papillary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid and mucinous subtypes"? See discussion.
Example: Fallopian tube right (salpingectomy): Primary adenocarcinoma: mixed serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: Code the Histology field to 8323/3 [adenocarcinoma, mixed cell]. The case is coded using the mixed histology rule A in the Coding Complex Morph Dx's.
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.
Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
Primary Site: What code should be used to represent the site for an "extraovarian" papillary serous adenocarcinoma located in the "rectal muscle sheath"? See discussion.
The location of the tumor in the rectus muscle sheath is unusual and suggests an origin within a preexisting mullerian.
Code the Primary Site field to C49.4 [connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of the abdomen].
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Should the size of tumor be recorded as 001 (focus) or the actual size when both are stated? See Discussion.
The pathology report from a TURP identifies a 3-mm focus of adenocarcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 003 [3 mm]. The rule that says to code a focus or foci of tumor as 001 was developed for use when no tumor size is given.
EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of "long-standing pneumonia," is that synonymous with "pneumonitis" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Is "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.
Should "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes be assumed to be direct contiguous extension of the primary tumor or does it represent lymph node involvement?
If it is direct extension, should we code it as 70 in the extension field? If not, should we code it as 2 in the lymph node involvement field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 70 [mediastinum, direct extension].
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
An official website of the United States government
Home