EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are "perivesical nodules" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code "perivesical nodules" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.
EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.
Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:
1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.
2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.
3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.
If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.
(Primary site = larynx)
9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.
The term "lymphadenopathy" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.
Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.
Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: What code is used to represent this field when the only information is a description of:
1. "hilar mass"
2. "mediastinal mass"
3. "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm" used to describe any of the lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD Lymph Nodes field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD-Lymph Nodes fields as follows for the examples given:
1) 9 [Unknown; not stated] for a "hilar mass"
2) 2 [Mediastinal] for a "mediastinal mass"
3) 2 [Mediastinal] for "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm," if used to describe any of the named lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description.
The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?
Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.
For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion.
For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/First Course Treatment--Breast: How is tumor size coded when preventative tamoxifen treatment precedes breast cancer diagnosis? Can we code the tumor size from the surgical specimen? Is tamoxifen treatment here? See Description.
What is the tumor size in this situation? Patient is on the STAR trial (preventative tamoxifen for women with high risk for breast cancer). Patient develops breast cancer and has surgery.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the surgical pathology report.
Do not code this preventative tamoxifen as first course cancer-directed treatment. This tamoxifen was part of a clinical trial intending to delay or prevent beast cancer from developing.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.
Site: Bladder
CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.
Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.
OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior
Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.
The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
An official website of the United States government
Home