Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051028 | Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma? | In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004. | 2005 | |
|
|
20010104 | Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion. | Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis. |
2001 |
|
|
20051139 | Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion. | 11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise. 2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm 11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma 3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells 4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma |
Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case. | 2005 |
|
|
20051036 | Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic? | Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner. Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER. |
2005 | |
|
|
20061049 | Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy? | The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy. "In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list. |
2006 | |
|
|
20031182 | Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description. | A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD. | Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002. | 2003 |
|
|
20021139 | Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. | Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. | For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. | 2002 |
|
|
20021210 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When there is a delay between the clinical diagnosis of a malignancy and the surgical resection of the primary site, can the resection be used to code the date of diagnosis, extension, size of the primary tumor, and histology? See discussion. | For example, mammogram March 28th states "certainly represents malignancy." Nothing else done until November 1st when pt presents w/skin retraction on PE and bone mets. A mastectomy November 6th shows "ductal ca w/dermal lymphatic invasion and tumor measuring 3.5 cm."
How is the date of diagnosis, extension, tumor size & histology coded for this case? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Date of Diagnosis to March. Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Histology can be upgraded from a clinical histology to a pathological histology anytime.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in coding extension, you need to assess whether there has been progression of disease or not. If progression of disease is verified, do not code extension using the surgical information from November. Code the extension and tumor size based on the mammogram and physical examination at the time of the mammogram, if available.
If no progression of disease is verified, use surgical information to code extension and tumor size.
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. |
2002 |
|
|
20031154 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds "what appears to be the top of a melanoma" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds "features consistent with lentigo maligna?" | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type. According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20021136 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. | Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.
If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.
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. |
2002 |
An official website of the United States government
