Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20160042 | First course treatment/Date 1st surgical procedure--Colon: Should the date of a polypectomy be recorded in the Date of First Surgical Procedure field when the entire tumor is not removed by polypectomy? See Discussion. |
The patient underwent a polypectomy. The endoscopy report noted the "single piece polypectomy" only partially removed the polyp/mass as the remainder of the mass was more fixed to the wall. The margins were not noted on the pathology report, but were presumably positive given the endoscopy report and the subsequent low anterior resection (LAR) that proved macroscopic residual tumor. Should the date of the polypectomy be recorded in Date of First Surgical Procedure field? Or would the date of the subsequent LAR be recorded since macroscopic residual tumor was present following polypectomy? |
Record the date of the polypectomy as the date of first surgical procedure. Polypectomies are surgery for the purposes of cancer registry data collection regardless of whether or not there is residual tumor after the polypectomy. |
2016 |
|
|
20110088 | Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion. |
The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon? |
Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery. |
2011 |
|
|
20081013 | First course treatment--Prostate: If a patient has a prostatectomy and the margins are positive, then several months later radiation is given because the PSA levels never decreased or have risen, is the radiation coded as first course of treatment or subsequent treatment? |
Record the radiation as first course of treatment even though it was delayed for several months. Radiation is highly effective when there is a small or microscopic amount of tissue left at the margin following prostatectomy. In most regions, radiation therapy is the standard of care for positive margins at prostatectomy. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081047 | Reason no surgery of primary site/First course treatment: If the Reason no Surgery of Primary Site field is coded as 7 (refused), must the other treatment options (radiation, chemo, hormone) also be coded as 7? See Discussion. | Coding instruction #5 in the SEER manual states: "Assign code 7 (refused) if the patient refused recommended surgery or made a blanket statement that he/she refused all treatment." | Refused [code 7] means this modality was specifically recommended by the physician and the patient refused. If two treatment alternatives were offered and surgery was refused, code Reason no surgery of primary site 1 [Surgery of the primary site was not performed because it was not part of the planned first-course treatment]. Refusal of surgery does not necessarily mean that all treatment was refused. Coding Surgery of Primary Site as "refused" does not affect the coding of Radiation, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, etc. |
2008 |
|
|
20061137 | Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability? |
Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations. An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable. |
2006 | |
|
|
20031024 | Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion. | Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved? | Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under "Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery." It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved. |
2003 |
|
|
20220003 | Reportability/Histology--Anus: Are 2021 diagnoses of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) II or AIN II-III reportable in patients with a known history of AIN II or AIN II-III diagnosed prior to 2021? See Discussion. |
Patient has a history of AIN I/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) dating back to at least 2015, was diagnosed with AIN II-III in 12/2019, and then diagnosed again with AIN II-III in 08/2021. There is no indication of treatment or a disease-free interval for this patient. SINQ 20210015, while not an exact match to this case, implies there is no clear disease-free interval for these AIN diagnoses, so it is the same non-reportable neoplasm diagnosed prior to reportability (12/2019). However, there was a diagnosis of a reportable neoplasm in 2021, so it also seems possible this would be accessioned as a reportable tumor based on a diagnosis of reportable tumor diagnosis in 2021. With the reportability changes for these intraepithelial neoplasia II/II-III tumors, these situations will arise more frequently. |
Report AIN II and AIN II-III cases when initially diagnosed in 2021 or later. Do not report retrospective cases; that is, cases with diagnoses prior to 2021 with continuation of AIN II or AIN II-III extending into the reportable period. |
2022 |
|
|
20210046 | Reportability--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation synonymous with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, fibrosarcomatous, and therefore reportable for diagnosis year 2021 and forward? See Discussion. |
Patient has a 2021 skin excision showing an atypical spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Per the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table, DFSP, NOS has a behavior code of /1, and DFSP, fibrosarcomatous has a behavior code of /3. There is no code listed for DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. Transformation is not included as a term that can/cannot be used for the Other Sites Schema, but this type of DFSP is often described as DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation. How do we code DFSP when transformation is used to describe fibrosarcomatous? |
Report DFSP with fibrosarcomatous transformation as it is synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). According to the WHO Classification of Skin Tumors, 4th edition, fibrosarcomatous DFSP is a variant of DFSP and that fibrosarcomatous transformation is seen in approximately 10% of DFSP cases. It is characterized by an often abrupt transition of DFSP. |
2021 |
|
|
20190047 | Reportability/Liver: If on imaging, there is no statement of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) score but there is reference that a lesion is in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 5 category, is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) reportable based on the OPTN 5 classification? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20160008 discusses the reportabilty and diagnosis date for liver primaries where imaging references the LI-RADS category as LR-5 or LR-5V. The 2018 SEER Coding and Staging Manual, Appendix E Reportable Example #16, demonstrates this concept. According to the LI-RADS categories a value of 5 is "definitely HCC" and is concordant with OPTN 5. Often we see only the OPTN categorization. |
Report HCC based on the OPTN class of 5. OPTN class 5 indicates that a nodule meets radiologic criteria for HCC. Be sure to document in text fields. |
2019 |
|
|
20240075 | 2024 SEER Manual/Reportability--Breast: Is "lobular intraepithelial neoplasia" (LIN) a glandular intraepithelial neoplasia? If so, is lobular neoplasia II (LN II)/LIN II non-reportable, similar to PanIN II - SINQ 20240026? See Discussion. |
The Reportable Diagnosis List indicates "Lobular neoplasia grade II (LN II)/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (LIN II) breast (C500-C509)" is reportable. The ICD-O-3.2 lists “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II” and “Glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, low grade” as histology code 8148 with behavior of /0 (benign). |
Report LN II and LN III along with LIN II and LIN III and assign code 8520/2. WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 5th edition, lists lobular neoplasia as acceptable, related terminology for lobular carcinoma in situ. |
2024 |
An official website of the United States government
