Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20051143 | CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate primaries? | 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.Do not use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.
The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that "After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging."
August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee. |
2005 | |
|
20081073 | CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion. |
According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines. |
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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution. |
2008 |
|
20061088 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: If bilateral tonsils are involved with lymphoma, is it one or two regions of involvement and how is extension 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 cases diagnosed 1-1-08 and later: Assign CS extension code 10 [involvement of a single lymph node region]. Bilateral tonsils are one organ/site. See Note 1 under CS Extension. Tonsil is coded the same as a lymph node region. |
2006 | |
|
20081037 | Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward? | 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 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual. The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging. |
2008 | |
|
20031155 | CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description. | "Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex." Does this mean that there is extension into the apex? | 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 2004 and forward: Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension. The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion "has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined." Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes]. |
2003 |
|
20061109 | CS Tumor Size--Lung/Breast: Explain why the SEER instructions differ from the CS Manual regarding priority order of sources to code tumor size? See Discussion. | Regarding the 2004 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Site Specific Coding Modules, Lung and Breast. The priority of sources for coding tumor size is Pathology, Operative Report, PE, imaging for breast and pathology, operative, endoscopic, and imaging for lung. This differs from the CS Manual instructions. | 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 in 2007 and forward, follow the instructions in the 2007 SEER manual and the CS manual. |
2006 |
|
20051122 | CS Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How is this field coded when no scan, scope or surgical evaluation of regional lymph nodes is performed for a case with localized disease in the primary site? See Discussion. | Prior to initiation of collaborative stage, SEER prostate guidelines instructed us to code lymph node involvement as negative when clinical or pathologic extension was coded 10-34 and there was no lymph node information. Is this guideline still in effect, or do we follow the collaborative stage rules which require lymph node information or, in absence of node info, usual treatment for localized disease? | 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 prostate and other "inaccessible sites" with localized disease, code the regional lymph nodes as clinically negative when not mentioned on imaging or exploratory surgery. |
2005 |
|
20051120 | CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. | 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative. | 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 the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...]. Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case. |
2005 |
|
20051044 | CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Colon: For a patient with both a prostate and colon primary, if the pathology report indicates that 2 of the 3 regional lymph nodes to the colon are positive for a prostate malignancy, how should these fields be coded for the colon primary? | 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 the colon primary, code Reg LN Pos 00 [all nodes negative]. Code Reg LN Exam 03 [three nodes examined]. Three lymph nodes were examined and found to be negative for metastatic colon cancer. |
2005 | |
|
20051070 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which category has priority when both apply, "Regional lymph nodes, NOS" or "Stated as N_, NOS"? See Discussion. | Example: When there is a clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis for a breast primary on a physical exam "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement", as well as a clinical N1 designation, do we code as 60 [Axillary LNS, NOS] or 26 [Stated as N1, NOS]? | 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 the example provided, assign code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s)...] for "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement." Code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS] is the least specific and would not be used in this case because axillary nodes are defined in code 25. Code 26 is for cases in which "N1, NOS" documented by the physician is the only information available. |
2005 |