Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20061050 | Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer? | Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer. | 2006 | |
|
20071053 | Grade, Differentiation: How is grade coded for cases using the FNCLCC (Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Ie Cancer) system? See Discussion. | Is FNCLCC a recognized system in the United States? Tongue was the primary site for the case we saw that used FNCLCC. | Do not code the data item Grade based on the FNCLCC grade. You may record the FNCLCC grade in a text field. | 2007 |
|
20110054 | First course treatment/Other therapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a transfusion coded as first course treatment for multiple myeloma? See Discussion. | Per the SEER Manual, First Course for Leukemia and Hematopoietic Diseases definitions, Other Hematopoietic states that transfusions are coded as "other" in the Other Treatment fields. Does this mean that a transfusion for chemotherapy-related anemia is coded as treatment for patients with multiple myeloma? | Do not code transfusions as treatment. According to hematopoietic specialty physicians, transfusions are given for such a variety of reasons (anemia, etc.) and should not be coded as other treatment. | 2011 |
|
20031194 | Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description. |
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans? Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes? |
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. | 2003 |
|
20100103 | Reportability--Corpus uteri: Is gestational trophoblastic neoplasia reportable if there is no mention of metastasis but the patient has been treated with chemotherapy? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20021106, for tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, a clinical diagnosis of metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease was to be coded to histology 9100/3 [Choriocarcinoma]. "Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia includes the diagnosis of choriocarcinoma." |
Do not report gestational trophoblastic neoplasia unless stated to be malignant. | 2010 |
|
20091103 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Is a prostate biopsy that states "highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy" reportable? | Do not report. "Not diagnostic of" means that while the pathologist is seeing some features that resemble cancer, there are not enough features to feel comfortable making an unquestionable diagnosis. Watch for another biopsy of the patient in the next 3-6 months. The statement "not diagnostic of" overrules the "highly suspicious" statement. | 2009 | |
|
20000447 | Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields? | Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement. | 2000 | |
|
20130148 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are "spinal" schwannomas reportable if stated to be extradural, vertebral nerve sheath, or of specific vertebrae? See Discussion. | Are any of the following cases reportable?
Example 1: Clinical Diagnosis: Extradural spinal cord tumor compatible with schwannoma. What assumptions should be made about reportability if the tumor is described as being extradural? The extradural spinal cord includes epidural fat surrounding the thecal sac and exiting nerve roots. Does this mean there are not nerve roots in the extradural spinal cord?
Example 2: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: Designated "C3-4 nerve sheath tumor" excision: Morphologic and immunohistochemical findings consistent with cellular schwannoma. When stated to be a "nerve sheath tumor" does that mean peripheral nerve (C47_) involvement or nerve root (C72_) involvement?
Example 3: Final Pathologic Diagnosis: T-8 vertebral tumor resection: Schwannoma with degenerative changes (calcification, cyst formation) - ganglion and nerve are identified. There is no mention clinically or pathologically whether this tumor is "intradural" or "of the nerve root." In the absence of information about whether the location of the tumor is intradural or involving the nerve root, is it assumed that it does involve this part of the spinal cord when a specific vertebrae is removed? |
Extradural schwannomas are not reportable. Neither vertebral nerve sheath nor a location of/on a specific vertebrae confirm the origin as being either extradural or intradural. Do not report a schwannoma if it cannot be determined to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." | 2013 |
|
20100014 | Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion. | Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?
1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa. 2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive. 3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface. 4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue. 5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking. 6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied. 7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given. 8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum). 9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk". 10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria". 11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST. 12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface. 13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria. 14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential." 15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+. 16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy." |
For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. | 2010 |
|
20110029 | DCO/Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors: How are these fields coded for an unknown primary reported as a DCO case? See Discussion. | Do DCO cases have default values for the Multiplicity Counter and Multiple Tumor Reported as One Primary fields? Should these fields be coded as 88 or 99?
In the data item pages for these fields, there is only a reference to see the NAACCR Death Clearance Manual. However, this manual does not provide an answer. There is guidance to use code 88 for unknown primaries but we noticed that SEER edits skip enforcing this requirement for DCO cases (see SEER IF205 and 206). |
For a DCO case reported as an unknown primary [C809], code Multiplicity Counter to 99 [Unknown if multiple tumors; not documented] and Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary to 99 [Unknown]. | 2011 |