EOD-Extension--Hematopoietic, NOS: If a solitary plasmacytoma originates in the right tonsil and extends to the left tonsil, vallecula and hypopharynx, is extension still coded to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [localized disease, solitary plasmacytoma only] for all cases of solitary plasmacytoma.
Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.
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.
Primary Site--Head & Neck (Middle ear): How do you code site for a skull based tumor consistent with a low grade papillary adenocarcinoma of "endolymphatic sac origin"?
Code Primary Site to C30.1 [Middle ear]. The endolymphatic sac is part of the inner ear labyrinth located with in the petrous portion of the temporal bone.
EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.
The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.
Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.
First Course Treatment: 1) When is Decadron (Dexamethasone) coded as cancer treatment? 2) When Decadron is given to a patient with multiple myeloma, is it coded as treatment only if given in combination with chemotherapy? See discussion.
SEER Book 8 states that Decadron is an important therapeutic agent for treatment of multiple myeloma. In the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, Decadron is a hormonal treatment for multiple myeloma "when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen".
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after:
1. Code hormone therapy to 01. Code any therapy administered to treat cancer tissue that achieves its effect on cancer tissue through a change in the hormone balance in the hormone therapy field. Decadron is coded for leukemias, lymphomas and multiple myelomas primaries. It is coded for other sites only when stated to be cancer-directed treatment.
2. Code hormone therapy to 01. Decadron should be coded as hormone therapy for multiple myeloma when given alone or as part of a first course of treatment chemotherapy regimen.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology adenocarcinoma with "areas of" papillary architecture and "foci of" squamous differentiation? Even though "areas of" and "foci" are non-majority terms, should histology be coded to the combination code of adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes [8255/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to the majority of the tumor, which is 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. The terms "areas of" and "foci of" should be ignored because they are not terms that reflect the majority of the tumor. Therefore, we cannot use rule A on page 2 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses because this diagnosis does not represent a complex morphology.
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 the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"?
For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."
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--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion.
For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.
If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].
However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).
SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.
1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.
An official website of the United States government
Home