System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 07/05/2024 18:33 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041087 CS Extension--Head of Pancreas: What code is used to represent extension to the superior mesenteric artery? See Discussion. In the CS coding scheme for Head of Pancreas, superior mesenteric artery is listed under both code 54 (T3) and 60 (T4).

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Assign code 60 for a primary in the head of the pancreas extending to the superior mesenteric artery. CS Extension code 54 should be Superior mesenteric VEIN and code 60 should be Superior mesenteric ARTERY. An errata will be issued by CS. In addition, extension 54 indicates resectable disease and code 60 is not resectable.

 2004
20041086 Histology (Pre-2007)/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Colon: How are these fields coded if a 3 cm sessile polyp is snared and removed piecemeal during a colonoscopy and the path microscopic description indicates a polypoid lesion with foci of malignant transformation found associated with bundles of smooth muscles followed by a LAR with no residual invasive tumor but the final path diagnosis is stated to be a M.D. adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.

3/04 colonoscopy 3cm sessile polyp snared & removed piecemeal. Path Micro: Polypoid lesion consists of branching & complex neoplastic glands lined by tall columnar epithelial...These foci of malignant transformation are assoicated with large polygonal epithelial...associated with desmoplastic stromal reaction & neoplastic glands can be found associated with bundles of smooth muscle.

4/04 LAR: focus of residual HG dysplasia: no residual invasive tumor. Final path dx: MD adenocarcinoma. Physician staged: T2 N0 M0.

Histology: 8140 vs 8210

Tumor Size: 030 vs 999 vs 990

Extension: 12 vs 20

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Based only on information provided:

Histology: 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in a polyp]

Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown]

CS Extension: 20 [Muscularis propria invaded]

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.

 2004
20041084

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is this one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual.

Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077].

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.

 2004
20041083 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.

Rectal primary:

5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.

 2004
20041082 Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.

4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.

Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?

 The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement. 2004
20041081 Reporting Source: Is an ER patient who is diagnosed on peripheral smear with an acute leukemia coded as an outpatient if the patient died while in the process of being admitted for treatment or is the patient coded as a death certificate case? Code reporting source as 1 [Hospital Inpatient/Outpatient or Clinic] for the case above. This case will be abstracted using information from the outpatient/ER record (and the death certificate). 2004
20041080

Behavior Code/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How are these fields coded when the final diagnosis on pathology indicates that an atypical meningioma invades the brain and the bone flap specimen indicates extensive invasion through the full thickness of the calvarium? See Discussion.

FDx on the path is: A. Rt frontotemporal brain tumor: Atypical meningioma, WHO grade II (out of III). B. Arachnoid tissue: Atypical meningioma with small focus of invasion into superficial brain and focal perivascular spread. C. Bone flap: Atypical meningioma with extensive invasion through full thickness of the calvarium.

Comment: Although this tumor shows a small focus of brain invasion, it should be considered a grade II (out of III) meningioma based on its histologic atypia (cellularity, sheeting of tumor cells and prominent nucleoli), elevated Ki-67 index and low mitotic rate.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2004, the example above is a benign meningioma and not reportable to SEER.

For tumors diagnosed 2004 or later, code the behavior as 1 [Borderline malignancy]. Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors].

According to expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant.

 2004
20041079 CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.

Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.

Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.

 2004
20041078

Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.

12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.

Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.

Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.

 2004
20041077 CS Site Specific Factor 1--Colon: If the registrar did not support the CEA code recorded with the appropriate text documentation, should the central registry accept the registrars coding or change the value to 999?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Accept your registrars' codes at your discretion. It is encouraged, but not required, to enter text for CS data elements. These cases do not automatically default to code 999.

 2004