Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: What treatment code is used to represent the drug "Gleevec" being used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. It should be classified as a chemotherapy agent, albeit a unique one. Gleevec seems to work the same way many other chemo drugs do. It disrupts cell division for malignant cells containing the BCR-ABL protein only, rather than for normal and abnormal cells together. When the cells can't divide and create a new generation, they simply die. This meets the definition of an antineoplastic chemotherapy agent.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to "unknown or not applicable" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. .
Surgery of Primary Site--Soft Tissue: What code is used to represent this field when an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue sarcoma is followed two weeks later with a wide excision (re-excision)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 26 [partial resection]. According to the CoC, "Excision" in the surgery codes refers to the lesion and "partial resection" refers to the organ. The biopsy is a local excision (code 25). The wide resection is code 26, presuming that more than just the remaining lesion was removed.
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should Mohs surgery be code to 27 [Excisional biopsy] or 31 [Shave biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion]? See discussion.
Under surgery coding in the 5/22/01 SEER Abstractor/Coder Workshop book, page 20, it states that Mohs surgery should be coded as an excisional biopsy. The ACoS I&R dated 6/6/2001 states that it should be coded to 31.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 34 [Mohs surgery, NOS], 35 [Mohs with 1-cm margin or less] or 36 [Mohs with more than 1-cm margin].
Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field when a patient has a history of a previous organ removal and has additional surgery/organ removal for a present cancer (e.g., History of a 1984 hysterectomy and in 2003 has ovarian primary treated with BSO)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 52 [Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy WITH hysterectomy].
Surgery of Primary Site/Reconstruction-First Course--Breast: If the plan is to "reconstruct" the breast 6 months after an ipsilateral modified radical mastectomy, is the time span a problem or should it be coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field because it was planned?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 55 [Modified radical mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast, Implant]. The time span is not a problem as long as the reconstruction was planned as first course, which is indicated by tissue expander insertion at the time of the original surgery.
Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Cervix: Should "negative endocervical curettings" be coded as surgical treatment for carcinoma in situ of the cervix primaries and should the date of the procedure ever be used in coding the Date Therapy Initiated field?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Surgery of Primary Site to 25 [D&C; endocervical curettage (for in situ only)]. If this is the first treatment given, the Date Therapy Initiated is coded to the date of the curettage.
Reportability--Sarcoma: Is "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma" reportable? See Discussion.
The final diagnosis for a soft tissue excision is, "atypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcoma". The Comment section states, "Atypical lipomatous tumor/well differentiated liposarcoma has a significant risk for local recurrence, but no metastatic potential."
Per the 2010 SEER Manual, page 3, example 4: The pathologist makes the final decision about the behavior for a particular case. In this case, the pathologist uses both a reportable and a non-reportable term in the final diagnosis and in the comment section of the pathology report. Does the pathologist's comment impact the behavior and reportability of this tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later: Atypical lipomatous tumor (8850/1) is not reportable. If the pathologist uses the term "well-differentiated liposarcoma" (8851/3) report the case. Use of this terminology indicates a less favorable prognosis.
Surgery of Primary Site--Cervix: How is this field coded for a cervix primary when a biopsy removes the entire tumor? See discussion.
Path from biopsy shows "severe dysplasia--CIN III" and the report from an endocervical curettage (ECC) is "chronic cervicitis"?
For cases diagnosed 1998 and later: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 25 [Dilatation and curettage; endocervical curettage (for in situ only)].
Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion.
Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion.
For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based.
An official website of the United States government
Home