System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 08/01/2024 10:16 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061004

CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6?

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.

Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size.

For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive].

 2006
20051145

CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion.

Path final diagnosis states: "No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section." Path micro states: "Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient."

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.

This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging.

According to the TNM supplement, "Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa ("skip metastasis") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis.

 2005
20051051

CS Lymph Nodes/Reg LN Pos/Exam: Is a final pathologic diagnosis of "Level 8 lymph node: Fibroadipose tissue containing a minute lymphoid aggregate, negative for malignancy" a lymph node for the purpose of coding these fields?

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.

Yes. "Fibroadipose tissue containing minute lymphoid aggregate" qualifies as a lymph node. Include in count as one lymph node examined in the example above assuming this is regional to the primary site.

 2005
20061130 CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?

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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.

The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.

 2006
20041077 CS Site Specific Factor 1--Colon: If the registrar did not support the CEA code recorded with the appropriate text documentation, should the central registry accept the registrars coding or change the value to 999?

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.Accept your registrars' codes at your discretion. It is encouraged, but not required, to enter text for CS data elements. These cases do not automatically default to code 999.

 2004
20081093

CS Extension: How is CS Ext coded for the following?

Rretroperitoneal primary

Cystic mucinous tumor with intraepithelial carcinoma

There is no CS Extension code for intraepithelial ca in the retroperitoneal scheme.

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.According to the American College of Surgeons I & R system, assign code 10 [confined to site of origin] for intraepithelial carcinoma of the retroperitoneum.

 2008
20061044 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: If a lymph node dissection of the neck reveals that 1/24 lymph nodes is positive and the positive 5.6 cm lymph node extends throughout levels II-IV, how are the SSF 3 (status of levels I-III lymph nodes) and SSF4 (status of levels IV-V lymph nodes) fields 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.According to the CS Steering Committee, code 999 for SSF 3 and SSF 4. In this case, do not make assumptions about which level of lymph nodes were involved.

 2006
20091069 CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded for a high grade urothelial carcinoma with "focal micropapillary features and invasion of lamina propria, with a note stating there is invasive carcinoma focally involving thin muscle bundles...difficult to distinguish whether muscularis propria or muscularis mucosae"?

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.Assign CS Extension code 15 [Invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue (tunica propria, lamina propria, submucosa, stroma)]. The information provided confirms invasion of the lamina propria (code 15) but is not definitive enough to assign a code higher than 15.

 2009
20081057 CS Extension--Lung: Chest CT shows segmental atelectasis (CS EXT code 40), but patient had Left Lower Lobe lobectomy/Lymph Node dissection with no involvment outside the lobe (pleura and all margins neg). Do we still code the atelectasis (CS Ext 40) over confined to lung (CS EXT code 10)?

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.Assign CS Extension code 40 [Atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar region but does not involve the entire lung (or atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis, NOS)].

CS extension code 10 does not apply when any condition described in codes 20-80 exists.

 2008
20041083 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.

Rectal primary:

5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.

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.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.

 2004