EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.
Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].
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.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked "poorly differentiated" on the TNM form)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus"? See discussion.
Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. "Focus" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.
We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of tumor.
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.
EOD Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion.
Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.
Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries?
Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034].
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.
This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home