Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Pancreas: Should an embolization of liver metastasis for a pancreas primary be coded as treatment?
Code "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) to a metastatic site in Surgical procedure of Other Site. Assign code 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed].
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
Surgical Procedure of Other Site: Is the excision of a distant lymph node or a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a distant lymph node coded as a Surgical Procedure of Other Site, even though they are performed for diagnostic purposes and not intended as treatment?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 3 [Non-primary surgical procedure to distant lymph nodes] for an excision of a distant lymph node because it is a surgical procedure. However, if only a fine needle aspirate of a distant lymph node is done, code this field to 0 [None].
Fine needle aspirates of regional lymph nodes are the only FNA biopsies to be coded in a surgery field (Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field). In addition, FNA biopsies of regional nodes are also included in the EOD-Number of Positive Regional and Examined Lymph Nodes fields.
Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Bladder: How is the systemic treatment/surgery sequence field coded for a 2013 case if the patient has a TURBT followed by multi-agent chemotherapy, and then a cystoprostatectomy followed by post-operative multi-agent chemotherapy?
For cases diagnosed in 2012 and later, code 7 (surgery both before and after systemic therapy) seems like the most appropriate answer. However, previous SINQ entries 20091055 and 20071102 have conflicting answers regarding surgery before and after systemic therapy. Do these SINQ entries apply to a 2013 diagnosis? Would the systemic treatment/surgery sequence be coded 7 because this patient had surgery then chemotherapy followed by more surgery? Should the post-operative systemic treatment be ignored in coding the sequence in this case?
Code the Systemic/Surgery Sequence to 7 [surgery both before and after systemic therapy] for this case.
The answers to SINQ 20091055 and 20071102 do not apply to a case diagnosed in 2013. These answers were posted prior to code 7 becoming effective in 2012.
Systemic/Surgery Sequence--Breast: How is this field coded for a breast cancer patient treated with a lumpectomy followed by chemotherapy and then a mastectomy?
Assign code 2 [Systemic therapy before surgery]. The code in Systemic Treatment/Surgery Sequence is related to the surgery coded in Surgery of Primary Site. For SEER, the mastectomy will be coded in the surgery field. The chemotherapy occurred before the mastectomy.
Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description.
Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?
Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.
In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather
progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.
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.
Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.
PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion.
Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].
Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms "lytic" or "lysis" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition?
Although the term "lytic lesion" is often used to describe bone lesions and "tumor lysis" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words.
Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?
Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.
An official website of the United States government
Home