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.
Histology--CLL/SLL: If a tissue diagnosis of "small lymphocytic lymphoma" is made six months after an initial blood diagnosis of "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" should the histology be updated from 9823/3 to 9670/3?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not change the histology to small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3). The chronic lymphocytic leukemia has advanced/progressed and disseminated into other tissues from the blood during the last six months. If the patient presents with disease in the blood and/or bone marrow only, code to CLL. If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For the case cited, the tissue involvement occurred six months after the initial diagnosis and the histology code is not changed to reflect the progression of disease.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.
Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion.
Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined: What codes is used to represent these fields when the surgeon states that a "lymph node dissection" was done, but no nodes are identified in the pathology report?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 3 [Number of regional lymph nodes removed unknown or not stated; regional lymph nodes removed, NOS] and code the EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined field to 00 [No nodes examined].
The surgery fields reflect the procedures the physician performed. The EOD fields reflect the results of those procedures.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.
1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.
2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.
Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion.
The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].
The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.
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-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.
Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.
We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.
We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.
An official website of the United States government
Home