Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?
These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.
EOD-Extension--Lung: Is bilateral pleural effusion coded as 72 [malignant pleural effusion] or 85 [metastasis]? See discussion.
Example:
10/30/98 CXR: Widespread malignancy, hilar, superior mediastinal masses, bilateral pleural effusions, fullness in soft tissue right neck.
11/01/98 CT chest/ABD: Extensive infiltrate mediastinum by radiolucent tumor mass that engulfs esophagus/trachea. Pleural effusion extends so low it apes ascites. Normal ABS/pelvis.
11/01/98 Pathology: FNA right supraclavicular lymph node: metastic oat cell ca. Sputum cytology reported to be negative.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Extension field to 72 [malignant pleural effusion; pleural effusion, NOS].
Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Cervix: Should "negative endocervical curettings" be coded as surgical treatment for carcinoma in situ of the cervix primaries and should the date of the procedure ever be used in coding the Date Therapy Initiated field?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Surgery of Primary Site to 25 [D&C endocervical curettage (for in situ only)]. If this is the first treatment given, the Date Therapy Initiated is coded to the date of the curettage.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are "atypical melanocytic hyperplasia" and "severe melanotic dysplasia" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or malignant.
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.
Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.
Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.
According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.
Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.
The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.
Priority Order for Coding Subsites
Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:
1 Pathology report
2 Operative report
3 Physical examination
4 Mammogram, ultrasound
If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion.
These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are "perivesical nodules" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code "perivesical nodules" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.
An official website of the United States government
Home