Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20071049 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: If a tubulovillous (TV) adenoma is in situ and other polyp(s) have an invasive component, does the in situ TV adenoma still have priority and should rule H18 be applied? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, always give precedence to coding the invasive. Rule H18 applies UNLESS the adenocarcinoma in the TV is in situ and the others are invasive. In this case, code the histology of the invasive adenocarcinoma. This clarification will be added when the MP/H manual is revised. |
2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20021078 | Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, "Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall"? | Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site. | 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20031048 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported. | 2003 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20061085 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
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. |
2006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20071023 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary. |
2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20061001 | 2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: On page C-353, in the supraglottic larynx schema, there is no mention of Level IV nodes in the CS Lymph Node codes. | 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.The CS Steering Committee is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it. |
2006 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20071027 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Which report and diagnosis should be used to code the histology if an excisional biopsy that removes the majority of the tumor has a diagnosis of "carcinoma," and the subsequent lumpectomy diagnosis is "microscopic residual disease consistent with infiltrating duct carcinoma"? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology for this case to 8010 [carcinoma]. The histology is coded from the pathology report with the most representative specimen (the most tumor tissue) even when the most representative specimen has a less specific histology. | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20041079 | CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants. | 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. The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1. Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each. Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor. |
2004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20240020 | Histology/Behavior: There are currently no codes available on the ICD-10-CM casefinding list for several of the site-specific intraepithelial neoplasias (8077/2). Will there be an update with additional codes for these sites that currently do not have codes to enable casefinding for these? See the table below.
|
Many of these terms are not specified in the codes and definitions in ICD-10-CM. This is because ICD-10-CM does not have the same granularity as ICD-O-3.2. There are a few sites where intraepithelial neoplasia II and/or III are mentioned. Even though ICD-O-3.2 classifies these as /2 (in-situ), for the intraepithelial neoplasia that are listed in ICD-10-CM, Grade II is designated as benign, while Grade III is designated as in-situ. It is not clear if medical coding will change the Grade II to an in-situ code. All the in-situ codes (except cervix) are included in the casefinding list. Grade III is included with the in-situ codes; however, there is no guarantee that medical coders will code them as in situ. High grades are coded as in-situ in ICD-10-CM. For those where there is no specific intraepithelial neoplasia code, the benign codes will cover any benign lesion for that site. This would make for a lot of review using the codes for casefinding. Most of the benign codes were removed from the casefinding list a couple of years ago to make it more manageable. Use the casefinding list as a guide for these neoplasias. It is not the most definitive source due to the lack of specificity of ICD-10-CM. It is not possible to map every single histology to a specific code. It is also not known how medical coders across the U.S. are coding these neoplasias. For that reason, pathology should remain the foremost casefinding resource used. The casefinding team will need to review the prepared list below and determine what codes to add. Any updates will be incorporated in the FY2025 updates (October 2024.)
|
2024 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
20130195 | Laterality--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is laterality coded to 0 [not paired] for all lymphoma cases including paired sites (e.g., breast, lung)? | Laterality coding for lymphomas is based on the primary site not histology. Laterality describes the side of a paired organ or side of the body on which the reportable tumor originated. Determine whether laterality should be coded for each primary.
Laterality coding instructions are located in the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual. See pages 68-70 in the 2013 manual, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2013/SPCSM_2013_maindoc.pdf. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
