Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021184 | EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.
The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement. |
Head & Neck | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021185 | Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion. | The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen." | For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total. | Head & Neck | Surgery of Primary Site | 2002 |
|
|
20021187 | Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable? |
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order: 1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable. 2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis. 3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20021188 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Testis: How many primaries should be reported when seminoma is diagnosed simultaneously in both testicles and both tumors are encapsulated? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Report this cases as two primaries, unless there is information in the record confirming one primary.
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 | |
|
|
20021190 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology "transitional cell and small cell carcinoma" of the bladder? See discussion. | Code 8045/3 is used for combination codes that represent a mixture of small cell carcinoma and any other carcinoma. When we use this histology code for bladder primaries with mixed transitional cell and small cell carcinoma, we encounter a problem with the SEER edits (site and morphology conflict). | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Please see SEER Inquiry question ID number 20041104.
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. |
Bladder | Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20021193 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"? | No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. | Breast | Histology | 2002 | |
|
|
20021194 | Grade/Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent these fields for the histology "High grade dysplasia (adenocarcinoma in situ)" or "AIN III/High grade AIN"? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code the Histology field for the first example to 8140/2 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS, in situ] and for the second example to 8077/2 [AIN, grade III]. For both of the cases code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined not stated or not applicable]. The 6th digit (grade code) of ICD-O-3 describes how much or how little a malignant tumor resembles the normal tissue from which it arose. In contrast, "grade" is used in the examples above to describe the degree of dysplasia, from mild dysplasia (low grade) to severe dysplasia (high grade). Do not record the degree of dysplasia in the 6th digit grade field. For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules for histology coding instructions. 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 | Histology | 2002 | |
|
|
20021199 | Primary Site/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: What codes are used in these fields when both regional lymph nodes and an extra-nodal site are involved with lymphoma and there is not a clear statement from the clinician as to the primary site? See discussion. |
In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site to C08.0 [submandibular gland] and use the surgery code schemes that apply to that site (Parotid and Other Unspecified Glands). Physiologically, lymphoma cells in regional lymph nodes do not "back-flow" into the extralymphatic organ to involve it secondarily. As a result, the primary site is usually the extralymphatic organ with regional lymph node involvement. Do not be afraid to code an extralymphatic site as primary when that site and its regional nodes are involved. If the lymph nodes are not regional to the extra-nodal involved site and the primary site cannot be determined, code the primary site to C77.9 [Lymph node, NOS]. 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. |
Lymphoma | Primary site, Surgery of Primary Site | 2002 |
|
|
20021200 | Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"? | Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary. | N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2002 | |
|
|
20021201 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone. 2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT). 3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I]. |
Lymphoma | N/A | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
