System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 09/15/2024 22:15 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051117 CS Tumor Size--Bladder: Is tumor size coded to 080 when the bladder mass is described as "greater than 8 cm in diameter"?

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.Based on the information provided above, code CS tumor size 080 [8 cm]. Code the information that is avaliable. Since size of tumor is not used to stage bladder cancer, an approximation is adequate.

 2005
20051118 CS Tumor Size--Rectum: Should the tumor size be coded to 080 from the colonoscopy size or 075 from the CT scan size? See Discussion. 6/29/04 Colonoscopy with biopsy: near obstructing circumferential friable mass extending from 8 to 16cm above anal verge. 6/30/04 CT Scan Abdomen/Pelvis: 7.5X7.2cm large rectal mass. The patient had radiation with concurrent 5-FU. Surgery is done after treatment.

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 tumor size as 080 (8cm). Code the largest pretreatment size recorded when there is preoperative systemic treatment.

 2005
20051119 CS Eval--Colon: When the surgical resection occurs after radiation or chemo, how is the tumor size/extension evaluation field coded when there is no mention of the tumor size or extension in the surgical resection pathology report? See Discussion. 6/30/04 CT Scan abd/pelvis: 7.5x7.2 cm large rectal mass with l cm nodular densities in perirectal region probably adenopathy; irregularity of perirectal soft tissue which could be due to tumor infiltration. 7/26/04 Patient has radiation therapy and 5FU. 10/19/04 LAR: MD Adenoca rectum with regional node mets (3/8).

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.Based on the information provided above, code CS Tumor Size and Extension from CT scan. Code CS TS/Ext eval 5 [Surgical resection performed with pre-surgical treatment...size based on clinical evidence].

Code CS lymph nodes using information from resection. Code CS Reg Nodes eval 6 [Regional LN removed...with pre-surgical treatment...based on pathologic evidence].

 2005
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 2005
20051122 CS Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How is this field coded when no scan, scope or surgical evaluation of regional lymph nodes is performed for a case with localized disease in the primary site? See Discussion. Prior to initiation of collaborative stage, SEER prostate guidelines instructed us to code lymph node involvement as negative when clinical or pathologic extension was coded 10-34 and there was no lymph node information. Is this guideline still in effect, or do we follow the collaborative stage rules which require lymph node information or, in absence of node info, usual treatment for localized disease?

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.For prostate and other "inaccessible sites" with localized disease, code the regional lymph nodes as clinically negative when not mentioned on imaging or exploratory surgery.

 2005
20051124 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Are the EOD guidelines developed for coding apex involvement still in effect for determining the code for apical involvement in SSF 4? See Discussion. How do the old prostate codes 31, 33, and 34 correspond to the new SSF 4 field? Because "arising in" or "extending into" apex is rarely, if ever, stated, previous SEER guidelines instructed us to use code 33 for "apex only" involvement, and code 34 for "apex and any other area of prostate". Code 31 [into/arising, NOS] was to be avoided.

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.No, the EOD guidelines for coding apex involvement are not in effect for coding SSF4.

The codes for CS site specific factor 4 include code 2 [into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS]. When it cannot be determined if apical involvement is arising in, or extending to, the apex, use code 2.

 2005
20051125 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Is there an established range of values that can be used to code negative, borderline or elevated PSA values? See Discussion. Previous SEER prostate coding guidelines listed a PSA range that could be used to code negative, borderline, or elevated values in the absence of any statement concerning elevated PSA in the medical record. Is this still in effect for SSF 2, or do we need a definite statement when only a numeric value is given?

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 matter is under consideration by the CS Steering Committee. The CS Steering committee is reviewing options for incorporating SEER guidelines into the CS manual.

 2005
20051126 Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What codes are used to represent "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma" and "papillary serous carcinoma with focal clear cell features" of the ovary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8323 [Mixed cell adenocarcinoma] to "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma." This is histology coding rule 3 in the 2004 SEER manual under single tumor (page 86). There is no other code for this mixture.

Example 1: 8323

Example 2: 8461 (clear cell is not coded according to Rule 6, page 87, because it is not the majority of the tumor).

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.

 2005
20051127 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" of the spine reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor.

Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS?

For cases diagnosed 2011 and later:

A spinal "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.

See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup,

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability

2005
20051128 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor 3--Breast: How are positive intramammary lymph nodes reflected in these fields? See Discussion. Patient with breast cancer underwent mastectomy. No axillary lymph nodes were positive, but 1 out of 2 intramammary lymph nodes were positive for mets (greater than 2 mm). CS Lymph node codes describe axillary and internal mammary nodes, but do not describe intramammary lymph nodes.

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.

Intramammary lymph nodes are coded as axillary lymph nodes for staging purposes. Intramammary node are nodes within the breast tissue. Both staging and treatment suggest these are equivalent to axillary nodes.

 2005