Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20081107 | Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis? | If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual. | 2008 | |
|
|
20081025 | MP/H Rules/Histology--Anus: What is the correct histology code and MP/H histology rule to use for AIN-3 arising in a polyp? See Discussion. | Patient has colonoscopy with excision of small 5mm polyp in rectum (no mention of anus or anal canal); path reads out: AIN-3 (anal intraepithelial neoplasm grade 3).
In coding the histology using the "Other Sites" rules, H2 would be the first rule that applies for this case. However, we lose the fact that the AIN-3 arose in a polyp (H3). Is this how SEER wants these cases coded? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H2 and assign histology code 8077/2 (squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III). Apply the rules in order, H2 precedes H3. | 2008 |
|
|
20081069 | Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion. | The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown. | Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated. | 2008 |
|
|
20081081 | Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. | "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." | The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. | 2008 |
|
|
20081114 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion. |
Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor." How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0). Reference: I&R 14825 |
Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules. According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF. |
2008 |
|
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081124 | CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is CS Extension coded for a malignant meningioma that demonstrates extension into adjacent brain tissue? For malignant brain tumors, code 60 represents extension into the meninges. Would code 60 be the correct code for extension from a malignant meningioma into brain tissue? |
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 extension code 60 for malignant meningioma with extension to adjacent brain tissue. According to the I&R, this section of CS was taken directly from SEER Summary Staging, since AJCC does not have a staging system for these tumors. |
2008 | |
|
|
20081099 | MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion. | How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side? | For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases. Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007. |
2008 |
|
|
20081039 | Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion. | Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis. Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement. The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation. Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician. For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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. |
2008 |
|
|
20081011 | Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion. | Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed. | Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.
CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].
Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].
The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
