Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20170062 | Race, ethnicity: How do you code race for someone from New Zealand? |
I recently did a presentation on coding the data item Race. In my presentation I discussed understanding geography help code race in some circumstances. One of the slides demonstrates how large Polynesia is and what Pacific islands are found in Polynesia, such as, Tahiti, Samoa, and even Hawaii, all of which have their own codes. Someone in the audience asked "How do you code New Zealand? Upon some research, New Zealand is not listed in Appendix D of the SEER coding manual. We could code them 01-White. But research shows there is a very large indigenous population. Technically, New Zealand is located within the boundaries of Polynesia - Code 25 (Polynesian). |
If the only information you have on race is that the person is from New Zealand, code race as white. This is based on the instructions for Australia, the closest neighbor to New Zealand as no other guidance was found. |
2017 |
|
|
20091093 | Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion. |
For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians? 1) Patient is Czechoslovakian 2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia 3) Patient is Ethiopian 4) Patient is born in Ethiopia 5) Patient is Japanese 6) Patient is born in Japan 7) Patient is Brazilian 8) Patient is born in Brazil Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate? |
Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance. Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields. |
2009 |
|
|
20190081 | Race: How is race coded for a patient who self-reports as white? In the Family History portion of the genetics consult, it states the maternal family is of mixed European and Cherokee descent; the paternal side is of mixed German/mixed European descent. Is race coded as Race 1: 03-American Indian and Race 2: 01-White, or as 01-White according to self-report by the patient? |
Self-reported information is the highest priority for coding race. That is because the race information for the U.S. population comes from census data and that information is self-reported. For national cancer statistics, in order for the numerator (cancer cases) and the denominator (population) to be comparable, use self-reported race information whenever it is available. We will add this clarification to the SEER manual. |
2019 | |
|
|
20200011 | Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion. |
Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not. In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)? |
Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data. We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update. |
2020 |
|
|
20160029 | Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion. |
We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct? |
I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions. |
2016 |
|
|
20000527 | Radiation: Is "consolidated" radiation therapy coded as part of first course therapy when there is no documentation of "planned treatment" and the radiation is done 4 months after the initiation of treatment? |
Yes, "consolidation" treatment is part of a planned treatment regimen. A treatment regimen may consist of the four following phases: 1. Induction (remission induction) 2. CNS preventive therapy 3. Consolidation/intensification 4. Maintenance |
2000 | |
|
|
20061029 | Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary. If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20051131 | Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion. |
The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says "Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases. If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast tissue. 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20200027 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging? SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list? |
Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable. |
2020 |
|
|
20220005 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion. |
A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification. |
Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. |
2022 |
An official website of the United States government
