Collaborative Staging--Lung: Given that the AJCC lung TNM is not applicable for a high grade sarcoma of this site, how do we code Collaborative Stage for this site/histo combination when the pathologist indicates a TNM stage of T2bN0M0=stage III, using AJCC Soft Tissue Sarcoma schema?
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.
Use the lung schema to code CS for sarcoma of the lung. Complete the CS information as best you can from the medical record WITHOUT using the TNM Soft Tissue Sarcoma staging form. Visceral sarcomas are specifically excluded from soft tissue sarcoma TNM staging and sarcomas are excluded from the TNM staging for lung.
Sarcoma is listed on the Histology Exclusion Table for lung. When a case is coded in Collaborative Staging and the histology is on the exclusion list, SEER Summary Stage 1977 and 2000 can be assigned. For these cases, TNM will not be calculated and displayed results will be "T NA N NA M NA and Stage Group NA".
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.
Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of "Tumoral melanosis" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as "Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion.
Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma.
If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note?
Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma.
Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.
PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated.
The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: If bilateral tonsils are involved with lymphoma, is it one or two regions of involvement and how is extension coded?
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 cases diagnosed 1-1-08 and later: Assign CS extension code 10 [involvement of a single lymph node region]. Bilateral tonsils are one organ/site.
See Note 1 under CS Extension. Tonsil is coded the same as a lymph node region.
CS Extension--Prostate: Does the term "activity" in a Prostascint report indicate a clinically apparent tumor, tumor extension or tumor involvement for this primary site? (http://www.rtrurology.com/prostascint.htm)
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 term "activity" alone does not indicate clinically apparent tumor or involvement.
Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?
Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: Should this field be coded to 999 [Unknown] or 008 [0.8 cm tumor] when the tumor size is not provided on a stereomammotomy biopsy for an in situ malignancy and a subsequent excision demonstrates 0.8 cm tumor of residual in situ 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.
Code CS tumor size 008 [0.8cm]. A mammotomy specimen is very small, so for this case, the residual tumor size is quite accurate. Size is not a critical data element for in situ breast cancer.
Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.
Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS.
Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.
Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.
Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false.
An official website of the United States government
Home