Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021003 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Whenever two hollow organs are diagnosed simultaneously with the same histology, one being invasive and the other in situ, can one assume that mucosal spread has occurred and that this situation represents one primary? In the absence of a physician statement, how do you determine mucosal spread from one organ to another? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, this type of situation represents one primary. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at the margins. Occasionally the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
Physicians may describe mucosal spread in various manners. You will see the terms "intramucosal extension," "in situ component extending to," or statements of an invasive component in one organ, with adjacent/associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium. A frequent example of this process is bladder cancer extending into the prostatic urethra via mucosal spread.
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. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20140066 | First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor? |
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants. |
N/A | First course treatment | 2014 | |
|
|
20081026 | MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion. | A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.
Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site. |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic. | N/A | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20120017 | Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability? |
This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3]. Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy. |
N/A | N/A | 2012 |
|
|
20031120 | Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignant spindle cell neoplasm in a subcutaneous mass of the right knee? See Description. |
The pathology report says: Right knee tumor: A. discrete subcutaneous mass 3.5x5.2x1.4 cm malignant spindle cell neoplasm (see Comment) B. A focus of subcutaneous malignant neoplasm is identified in the superior resection margin. C.All other margins are clear. The comment mentions that the specimen has been sent to Mayo Clinic and the Mayo clinic consult says, "we still believe that the diagnosis of spindle cell carcinoma is correct. Obviously the differential diagnosis involves melanoma and sarcoma also. The results of the immunoperoxidase stains strongly support the prior diagnosis of a carcinoma." |
Code the site to C49.2 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of lower limb and hip]. The site is a subcutaneous mass. C49 with 8032/3 will not be impossible following the next updates to the SEER edits. |
N/A | Primary site | 2003 |
|
|
20031162 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for "B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description. | Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma. | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification. For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ. |
N/A | Histology | 2003 |
|
|
20010145 | EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion. | Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20? | The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category. |
N/A | N/A | 2001 |
|
|
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. | N/A | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20140026 | Histology: Are all well differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (carcinoid) tumors coded to 8240 or 8246? When do you use code 8246? |
Code 8246 is correct when the mass/lesion is referred to as neuroendocrine "carcinoma" or NEC. Use code 8240 when the mass/lesion is referred to as a neuroendocrine "tumor" or NET G1. The difference is the word tumor versus carcinoma. Carcinoid is most often used interchangeably with neuroendocrine tumor and not with neuroendocrine carcinoma. |
N/A | Histology | 2014 | |
|
|
20051095 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: How do we code Rituxan for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Herceptin for breast cancer? See Discussion. | Page 195 of the SEER Manual 2004 lists these as examples of Immunotherapy. The new SEER*Rx categorizes these as chemotherapy. (Sinq # 20041025 says to code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy, too.) |
Code Rituxan and Herceptin as chemotherapy. SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. Be sure to use SEER*Rx [http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/] because some agents changed categories when SEER*Rx was deployed. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded. |
N/A | Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy | 2005 |
An official website of the United States government
