Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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 |
|
|
20110058 | Date of diagnosis/Flag: Will the Date of Diagnosis Flag ever be used if the instructions for coding Date of Diagnosis are followed? See Discussion. | If an abstractor follows the instructions for coding the Date of Diagnosis and can at least estimate a year of diagnosis, in what scenario will the Flag be used?
Per the 2010 SEER Manual,
Page 49 Date of Diagnosis, second paragraph, "Regardless of the format, at least Year of diagnosis must be known or estimated. Year of diagnosis cannot be blank or unknown." The manual gives the following guidelines for coding diagnosis date/flag:
Page 50, Coding Instructions: 3. If no information about the date of diagnosis is available a. Use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis b. In the absence of an admission date, code the date of first treatment as the date of diagnosis.
Page 51, Coding Instructions: 9. Estimate the date of diagnosis if an exact date is not available. Use all information available to calculate the month and year of diagnosis.
Page 53, Date of Diagnosis Flag, Coding Instructions: Always leave blank. Date of Diagnosis will always be a full or partial date recorded. |
The date of diagnosis flag should always be blank. | 2011 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
20061144 | Date of Diagnosis/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are these fields coded if a 3/17/03 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "malignant proliferative disorder" is subsequently confirmed to be a "low grade lymphoma" per a bone marrow biopsy in early 2006? See Discussion. | 3-17-03: Bone marrow biopsy from rt iliac crest: Hypercellular marrow (90%) with extensive involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder (see description). Micro: The bone marrow is diffusely (>90%) involved by a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder. This consists of small lymphocytes,histiocytes, and large atypical cells with prominent nucleoli.
12-22-05 Extensive bone marrow involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder, bone biopsy from femur.
1-27-06 Hem/Onc Physician Note: following pt for a lymphoproliferative disorder. ...bone marrow biopsy 2003, suggestive of, but not truly diagnostic, a lymphoproliferative disorder. Therefore, I elected not to do anything, but just follow her.
3-23-06 Hem/Onc Note: pt with a history of an apparently low-grade lymphoma involving the marrow, as well as, I believe, the liver and recently pathologically diagnosed as a T-cell-rich B-cell lymphoma. ...followed in the past by Dr. ___ and has never actually had any treatment for this lymphoma, although it is documented even three years ago by bone marrow biopsy. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Code the diagnosis date to 3/17/03. The histology code is 9970/3 [Malignant myeloproliferative disorder]. The bone marrow biopsy confirms a "Malignant" lymphoproliferative disorder. Apply ICD-O-3 rule F and assign /3 to histology code 9970. 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20071054 | Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion. | Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05? | Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy. The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy. |
2007 |
|
|
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. | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
