Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031030 | Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19? | Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum. According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031029 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. | Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20031143 | Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description. |
For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears. In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla]. |
2003 |
|
|
20031192 | EOD-Extension--Breast: How is this field coded when the diagnosis includes both invasive and in situ disease, and the pathology report stated the tumor size may or may not include the size of the in situ portion of the tumor? See Description. | Examples:
1. Invasive ductal carcinoma well differentiated, 1.2 cm, gross tumor size, ductal carcinoma in situ.
2. Gross tumor size 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3 cm. well differentiated to moderately differentiated invasive ductal ca, accompanying component well differentiated ductal carcinoma in situ, solid, cribiform. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use extension codes 16, 26, or 36 depending on extent of involvement. These codes indicate that invasive and in situ components are present, the size of the entire tumor is coded in Tumor Size, the size of the invasive component is not stated, and the proportions of in situ and invasive are not known. Both examples above measure the entire tumor including invasive and in situ components. Assign extension code 16, unless there is evidence of further involvement. |
2003 |
|
|
20031096 | Radiation: How would this field be coded for treatment with quadramet [radioactive samarium]? See Description. | Paitent is receiving quadramet for treatment of lung metastases. | Code Quadramet in the RX Summ-Radiation field as 3 [Radioisotopes]. Quadramet is a radioisotope used to palliate bone pain. The instructions in the SEER manual state: "Record all radiation that is given, even if it is palliative." | 2003 |
|
|
20031201 | Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the diagnoses "myelodysplastic syndrome," "myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" and "myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" all reportable to SEER for diagnosis 2001 and later? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:"Myelodysplastic syndrome" (NOS) is reportable to SEER--ICD-O-3 code 9989/3. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" is not reportable to SEER because "thrombocytopenia" is not reportable. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" is not reportable to SEER because "anemia" is not reportable. 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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031059 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Description. | A breast cancer patient had a FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection. Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, the number of Regional Nodes Positive and Examined include all nodes examined by the pathologist, unless there is disease progression. In other words, these fields are cumulative. An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 97 for number positive and 95 for number examined. 1 & 2. Assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Case example: Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07. | 2003 |
|
|
20031160 | EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?" | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031080 | Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description. | Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection. Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.
A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly. |
2003 |
An official website of the United States government
