EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are micrometastases in the lymph nodes, found only on immunohistochemical staining, coded as positive lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code as positive lymph nodes that have micrometastases diagnosed ONLY on immunohistochemistry. By traditional diagnostic methods, these are still negative lymph nodes.
Summary Stage and EOD ignore the IHC positive micrometastases for cases diagnosed through 2003. The collaborative staging system that begins with 2004 cases and is based on the sixth edition of TNM addresses this issue.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: How do you code this field when the gross description on the pathology report states "nodal tissue is matted" but only 1/18 lymph nodes is found to contain micrometastatsis per the microscopic description of the report?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 1 [Micrometastasis] because the matted nodal tissue was found to contain only one node with micrometastasis when examined microscopically. Coding priority is given to the microscopic description over the gross description.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: When isolated tumor cells are found in an axillary lymph node, should lymph node involvement be coded to 0 [no lymph node involvement] or 1 [micrometastasis (less than or equal to 0.2 cm)]?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2004: Code the EOD-Lymph Node field to 0 [No lymph node involvement] when regional lymph nodes are negative, even if there are positive isolated tumor cells (ITC).
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" or "lymphoid areas" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description.
For an adenocarcinoma in the colon, under the "lymph node" section of the final path diagnosis it states "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" in addition to "one of two involved lymph nodes." The micro description states "There are multiple small lymphoid areas with tumor. A definite node excised from the mesentery shows...replacement of stroma and an additional very small node shows no tumor."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No, do not code tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas as lymph node involvement.
However, code lymph node involvement for this case as 3 [mesenteric, NOS] because a mesenteric node is involved.
Regarding tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas from our pathologist consultant: Unless the anatomy of lymph node is evident (sinuses, trabeculae, primary and secondary follicles) these aren't lymph nodes and should not be coded as such. Unless there is evidence to the contrary in the path report, I would suggest that this be considered intramural spread, not lymph node spread.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic fat still coded as lymph nodes when the pathology report states, "there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion"? See Description.
Patient underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Path final diagnosis stated: "Regional lymph nodes: met carcinoma in 18 of
43 lymph nodes. Pathologic stage (AJCC/UICC 6th edition): pT3, V2, pN2, pMx. See comment." Path comment: "There are additional macroscopic stellate deposits of carcinoma in the pericolic soft tissue. According to the 6th edition of the AJCC staging manual, these should be designated as "V2," indicating that there is a high likelihood that these represent foci of venous invasion."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
When the number of deposits is not mentioned, code Number of Regional Nodes Positive as 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Unless the procedure is documented as a dissection, code Number of Regional Nodes Examined as 98 [Regional lymph nodes surgically removed but number of lymph nodes unknown/not stated and not documented as samping or dissection; nodes examined, but number unknown].
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: When a physician provides only "Stage IV" (i.e., an abbreviated stage) for a right posterior tongue primary with lateral extension into the oropharynx and hypopharynx, can you assume "palpable" level 2, 3 and 5 lymph nodes are involved?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.
The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive "neck nodes" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the "neck" are distant, rather than regional, for lung.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: In coding lymph node involvement for a testicular primary, should we use code 5 (Size not stated) when there is not a pathologic size of the lymph node provided? See discussion.
Should Note 1 in the testis EOD be changed to "Metastases in lymph nodes are now measured by the size of the lymph node as stated in pathology report"? The SEER EOD-88, 3rd Edition, states that "when size of regional lymph nodes is required, code from the pathology report."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For testis cases only, "metastasis in lymph nodes" is measured by the size of the lymph node or the lymph node mass. It is acceptable to code the size of this metastasis from a CT scan or other imaging when a pathology specimen is not available for testicular primaries.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Extension: Does extracapsular lymph node extension into adjacent tissue or organs affect EOD coding? See Description.
For a lung primary a PET scan showed marked uptake in the right hilum consistent with metastatic disease. A radical pneumonectomy was performed and the operative findings showed that the pulmonary artery was involved with a mass.
Pathology: Small cell carcinoma in the lung parenchyma. The distal bronchi showed obstructive pneumonitis. There were mets found on 02/05 on the hilar lymph nodes and 00/02 peribronchial nodes. The mets in the hilar nodes extended beyond the lymph node capsule into the pulmonary artery.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Extracapsular lymph node extension does not affect the extent of disease. Code the extent of regional lymph node involvement in EOD lymph nodes.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Cervix: What codes are used to represent these fields for a cervix primary when the only information on lymph nodes is a CT of the pelvis showing "pelvic adenopathy" (no surgery was done)?
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown]. Code the Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 98 [No nodes examined] and the Lymph Nodes Examined to 00 [No nodes examined] because there was no resection of the primary organs. Adenopathy, NOS, per SEER guidelines, is not coded as lymph node involvement
An official website of the United States government
Home