Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20061036 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: For lymphoma cases, can extension be coded to 80 [Nodular involvement of lungs] based on imaging or operative findings when there is no positive statement of involvement? See Discussion. | Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings? Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R. |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Extension code 80 can be assigned based on imaging or operative findings as in the lymphoma case described above. The fact that this extension was not based on pathological evidence is captured in the evaluation code. Assign CS/TS Ext-Eval code 0 [No staging laparotomy done. No autopsy evidence used (clinical)]. |
2006 |
|
20051020 | CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion. | In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage. If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated]. |
2005 |
|
20041090 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Lung: How are these fields coded for bilateral pleural effusion for a right lung primary? A code of 72 in the CS Extension field leads to a T4, but bilateral pleural effusion is M1. Should CS Mets at Dx be coded 39? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For bilateral malignant pleural effusion, code the ipsilateral malignant effusion in CS Extension and the contralateral malignant effusion in CS Mets at Dx. Assuming the bilateral pleural effusion is the furthest extension in this case, code CS Extension to 72 [Malignant pleural effusion]. Code CS Mets at Dx to 40 [Distant mets, NOS]. |
2004 | |
|
20061127 | CS Lymph Nodes--Esophagus: Is a resected positive "periesophageal nodule" coded as an involved lymph node for an esophagus primary? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20000846: Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node. SINQ 2000846 applied to EOD. Can this concept be used for Collaborative Stage? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For cases diagnosed on or after January 1, 2004: Search for additional information on the "nodule." Review the gross and microscopic descriptions to determine whether or not the nodule is a lymph node. If it is not possible to obtain further information, apply the downstaging rule and select the Extension or LN code that results in the lower category. |
2006 |
|
20061009 | CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If there are two ER/PR tests, one positive and one negative, which result should be coded in the SSF fields 1 and 2? See Discussion. | SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast? Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR + |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007, according to the CS Steering Committee, record the pathologist's interpretation of the assay value for the most representative tumor specimen. This may require conversation with the pathologist when specimen size is not specified. |
2006 |
|
20041094 | CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Paget disease with underlying DCIS. How should CS Extension, SEER Summary Stage 2000, histology, and behavior be coded? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based only on the information provided above, 1. The CS extension code is 07 [Paget disease of nipple (without underlying invasive carcinoma pathologically)]. 2. The SS 2000 stage is 1 [Localized]. 3. The histology code is 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal carcinoma of breast]. The behavior code is 3 [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. |
2004 | |
|
20041086 | Histology (Pre-2007)/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Colon: How are these fields coded if a 3 cm sessile polyp is snared and removed piecemeal during a colonoscopy and the path microscopic description indicates a polypoid lesion with foci of malignant transformation found associated with bundles of smooth muscles followed by a LAR with no residual invasive tumor but the final path diagnosis is stated to be a M.D. adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. | 3/04 colonoscopy 3cm sessile polyp snared & removed piecemeal. Path Micro: Polypoid lesion consists of branching & complex neoplastic glands lined by tall columnar epithelial...These foci of malignant transformation are assoicated with large polygonal epithelial...associated with desmoplastic stromal reaction & neoplastic glands can be found associated with bundles of smooth muscle. 4/04 LAR: focus of residual HG dysplasia: no residual invasive tumor. Final path dx: MD adenocarcinoma. Physician staged: T2 N0 M0. Histology: 8140 vs 8210 Tumor Size: 030 vs 999 vs 990 Extension: 12 vs 20 |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Based only on information provided: Histology: 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in a polyp] Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown] CS Extension: 20 [Muscularis propria invaded]
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. |
2004 |
|
20051103 | CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion. | For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present. Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression. Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression. |
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above. According to our pathologist consultant: Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma. The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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. |
2005 |
|
20051128 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor 3--Breast: How are positive intramammary lymph nodes reflected in these fields? See Discussion. | Patient with breast cancer underwent mastectomy. No axillary lymph nodes were positive, but 1 out of 2 intramammary lymph nodes were positive for mets (greater than 2 mm). CS Lymph node codes describe axillary and internal mammary nodes, but do not describe intramammary lymph nodes. | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Intramammary lymph nodes are coded as axillary lymph nodes for staging purposes. Intramammary node are nodes within the breast tissue. Both staging and treatment suggest these are equivalent to axillary nodes. |
2005 |
|
20091001 | CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: Are lymph nodes in the pericolic mesentery of the sigmoid that are removed during ovarian cancer debulking surgery, coded as regional or distant? See Discussion. | Debulking surgery found tumor in both ovaries and in lymph nodes of pericolic mesentery, which was removed en bloc with a segment of sigmoid colon (colon had tumor implants involving serosa). Pericolic nodes are not listed as regional for ovary. However Note 2 in the CS manual for Extension states "sigmoid mesentery" is a regional pelvic organ, and that metastatic deposits here should be coded in the extension field, not as distant mets. Should lymph nodes from this same area be coded as regional or distant? | This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2. Lymph nodes in the mesentery of the sigmoid colon are regional for an ovarian primary. Code involved sigmoid mesenteric nodes under CS Lymph Nodes. |
2009 |