EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
Update to Current Manual/Neoadjuvant Treatment: What codes should be used for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the neoadjuvant therapy is still in progress at the time the case is initially abstracted as with rapid reporting. There is no code for neoadjuvant therapy still in progress and code 9 generates an edit for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response.
Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response and assign a code 9 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect when the treatment is still in progress. Revise these codes after the treatment has been completed.
We will update the manual to include these instructions.
CS Extension/EOD Extension--Renal Pelvis: Primary site is renal pelvis with direct extension to the rt adrenal gland. What is the correct extension code?
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 CS Extension code 67 [Adrenal gland from renal pelvis] for adrenal extension from renal pelvis -- T4 and regional direct extension.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: Is 8316/3 [Cyst associated renal cell carcinoma] the appropriate code for 1) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, 2) Renal cell carcinoma mass with cystic areas and 3) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, ICD-O-3 histology code 8316 is the correct code for the three examples above.
There are two categories of cyst-associated renal cell carcinomas: Renal cell carcinoma originating in a cyst, and Cystic renal cell 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.
CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded when the pathology states "papillary transitional cell carcinoma with no invasion into the submucosa or deep muscularis" but there is "focal extension of tumor into bladder diverticula"?
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 the CS Extension field to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma stated to be noninvasive]. Extension into bladder diverticula does not change the code. Diverticula are pouches in the mucosa (mucous membrane).
Reportability--Skin: Effective 2021, a cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is a related term for smooth muscle tumor, NOS (8897/1) in ICD-O-3.2. Currently, we have been capturing these as a C44_ (leiomyosarcoma, 8890/3) but the 2019 SEER inquiry states that atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. This is not documented on the 2018 ICD-O-3 updates. Should this 2019 case be 8897/1 or 8890/3?
Cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is reportable for 2019. Code histology to leiomyosarcoma 8890/3.
As of cases diagnosed 1/1/2021, it is no longer reportable based on assignment to 8897/1 in ICD-O-3.2.
Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS" synonymous with "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules?
Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term "myeloproliferative syndrome" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: If the only indication of grade for a bladder primary is "grade 2, NOS," and we do not know the grading system being used by the pathologist, is the numeric grade 2 coded?
See the General Coding Rules on page 92 of the 2004 SEER Manual for instructions about coding grade.
If the only information available is "Grade 2," assign code 2 [Grade II].
Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:
Lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse, intermediate in 1995
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in June, 2005
According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same primary.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.
Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
An official website of the United States government
Home