Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
Race, ethnicity: How do you code race for someone from New Zealand?
I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian).
If the only information you have on race is that the person is from New Zealand, code race as white. This is based on the instructions for Australia, the closest neighbor to New Zealand as no other guidance was found.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: Is this counted as one or two primaries?
Patient is diagnosed with SCC esophageal cancer. Work-up reveals a lung nodule. Lung FNA (cytology) is read by the pathologist as SCC, favor metastatic esophageal SCC. However, the managing physicians are treating the patient as two separate primaries.
If the patient is being managed and treated as a case of primary lung cancer, report the lung diagnosis as a separate primary.
CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion.
The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.
If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.
Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: Is histology code or the number of primaries assigned differently in SINQ 20180093 if the word "pattern' was omitted? See Discussion.
Regarding the answer to SINQ 20180093: This is a single primary; coded 8140/3 adenocarcinoma. In the biopsy and the two tumors found on lobectomy, the specific adenocarcinoma histologies are described as acinar predominant pattern, solid growth pattern and lepidic predominant pattern. You do not code a pattern, so rule M7 above applies and this is a single primary.
My question is based on Note 2 in Coding Multiple Histologies for lung cancers that says: Predominantly describes the greater amount of tumor. Predominant and majority are synonyms. Per the CAP protocol, the term predominant is acceptable for the following specific subtypes of adenocarcinoma. For these subtypes only, the word predominant is used to describe both the subtype and the grade of the tumor.
If the word "pattern' was omitted, you would abstract multiple primaries per the Lung Solid Tumor Rule M6 and code histology to adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant (8551/3) and adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (8250/3) per Rule H4 as the word "pattern' is not included in each histology.
Primary Site--Liver: What is the topography code for combined hepatocellular carcinoma/cholangiocarcinoma (M-8180/3) especially when there is no documentation that intrahepatic bile duct is the tumor site? Reports usually just indicate a liver mass(es) but since the intrahepatic ducts are within the liver, is the code C221 due to the cholangiocarcinoma component, thus making the case stageable?
If there is no further information about where the cancer originated, assign C220. Use ICD-O-3 as the source for coding topography. The topography code associated with combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (8180/3) is C220 when there is no other information available, according to ICD-O-3.
Update to current manual/Lymphovacular invasion--Thyroid: Are psammoma bodies only recorded as vascular invasion in papillary thyroid cancer cases? See Discussion.
For example, total thyroidectomy specimen shows right lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma, 4.2 cm, unencapsulated, with numerous psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion; left lobe with papillary thyroid carcinoma, 0.6 cm, encapsulated, with capsular invasion, with intralymphatic psammoma bodies in non-tumoral thyroid parenchyma, without angioinvasion. The synoptic summary documents vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only).
If you are collecting lymphovascular invasion (LVI) for thyroid cases, record "vascular invasion present (psammoma bodies only)" as vascular invasion (code 1, Lymphovascular Invasion Present/Identified) in the LVI data item. Use a text field to specify that this is vascular invasion by psammoma bodies.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Kidney: Is a clinical diagnosis of a right kidney lesion with a “75% chance of malignancy” reportable when no further information is available? See Discussion.
The CT findings identified a right kidney rim-enhancing centrally cystic lesion most suggestive of clear cell renal cell carcinoma measuring 3.2 cm. The radiologist’s impression was “concerning for renal cell carcinoma.” The subsequent urologist’s consult states the right kidney lesion has a 75% chance of malignancy. The urologist discussed active surveillance, surgery, and ablation, and after discussion with the patient the plan was for active surveillance.
No further information is available, and we are unable to follow up with the physician regarding this case.
Should a lesion with a high percentage chance of malignancy (e.g., 75% chance) be considered a lesion “most likely” to be malignant?
If you are unable to follow up with the physician, do not report this case until or unless more information becomes available.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an MRI finding of “statistically meningioma” reportable? See Discussion.
Example: Patient has a 2023 brain MRI described as having a “new dural based nodule, statistically meningioma, along the left distal tentorial incisura.” All subsequent chart information is related to patient’s unrelated diagnosis of multiple sclerosis only.
Is the terminology “statistically” reportable ambiguous terminology in this context?
If you cannot clarify this with the involved physicians, do not report this case of meningioma based on information provided. There is no indication that the patient was treated or further evaluated for meningioma.
CS Extension/Polyp--Colon: How is CS extension coded for tumor invasion described as "Haggitt level 4"? See Description.
Polypectomy specimen revealed adenocarcinoma of the rectum in a tubulovillous adenoma. Per path extent of invasion was Haggitt level 4. The micro description of the tumor stated that there was malignant epithelial neoplasm in colonic mucosa.
In a 1985 Gastroenterology journal article, Haggitt described five levels of polyp invasion:
Level 0-confined to mucosa
Level 1-head
Level 2-Neck
Level 3-Stalk
Level 4-Submucosa of underlying colonic wall.
For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:
Use the best information available to code CS extension. The following conversion may be used when the only information available is the Haggitt level.
An official website of the United States government
Home