Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20021112 | Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion. | Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is "Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB." | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this case. 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. |
2002 |
|
20091059 | CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. | Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field? | 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 code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i). |
2009 |
|
20091050 | Date of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How is this field coded when a second breast tumor is found at mastectomy two months after the original breast cancer was diagnosed, but during initial workup and treatment? See Discussion. | Breast cancer was diagnosed on core biopsy on 02-27-07. It was not known that the breast was harboring 2 tumors until mastectomy was done on 4-01-07. Both tumors are counted as one primary. | Code "Date of Multiple Tumors" field to the date of the mastectomy. That is the date that multiple tumors were discovered. | 2009 |
|
20071090 | Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these data items coded for a single breast primary composed of both in situ and invasive disease when measurements are provided for both the invasive and in insitu components? See Discussion. | Breast cancer, invasive duct carcinoma with DCIS, 1.3 cm, DCIS 3.7 cm. "The in situ carcinoma is very extensive in this lumpectomy. It is present contiguously from sides 1A through 1L sparing only the final 8 mm of medial margin. In situ and invasive carcinoma are prominently present along almost the entire superior margin." Is the mult counter 02 with Type of mult tumor 30, or one tumor? | Because there are individual measurements for each of these tumors, code the multiplicity counter 02 [Two tumors present]. Code Type of Multiple Tumor as 30 [In situ and invasive]. | 2007 |
|
20031012 | EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion. | Breast case described clinically as a "breast mass and nodal metastases" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement. |
2003 |
|
20081116 | CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant brain tumor that presents as a lesion with significant pressure on the left frontal ventricle and dilation of the right ventricles? See Discussion. | CS Extension code 30 includes tumor that invades or encroaches upon the ventricular system. Does significant pressure mean the same thing as encroach? | 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 assign extension code 30 in this case unless there is evidence elsewhere of ventricular system involvement. "Significant pressure" is not synonymous with encroachment or involvement. See the list of ambiguous terms for CS staging on page 121 of the 2007 SEER manual. |
2008 |
|
20051033 | CS Site Specific Factor--Melanoma: What is the correct code for measured thickness in SSF 1 for a melanoma of the choroid without an enucleation? See Discussion. | CS Site Specific Factor 1 for melanoma of the choroid codes "Measured Thickness (Depth), Breslow's Measurement." The note for this field states "Record actual measurement in millimeters from the pathology report." For melanoma of the eye, there is often only an eye exam report stating the thickness. Can PE thickness (clinical statement only) be coded for SSF 1 or is this field coded only from pathology? (i.e., all cases treated without enucleation would have this field coded 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. Code SSF 1 999 [Unknown] when there is no enucleation, and therefore, no pathology report for a choroid melanoma. |
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 |
|
20081067 | CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion. | CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking. | 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 change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008. |
2008 |
|
20051080 | Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion. | CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging? | 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. There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension. |
2005 |