Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: Is the primary site coded to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast] or C493 [ Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax ] for a tumor described as a "high grade soft tissue sarcoma present in the upper outer quadrant of breast"?
If the sarcoma is primary in the breast, code the primary site to C504 [upper-outer quadrant of breast]. C500 - C509 includes soft tissue of breast.
CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion.
Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)".
Would these examples be coded to 46?
Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3.
Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3.
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.
Code 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ.
Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading
Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist.
EOD-Extension--Breast: If the pathology report states "infiltrating duct carcinoma...measuring 7mm in diameter...focal areas of intraductal carcinoma," do we code this field to 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and in situ described as minimal] or to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size and proportions of in situ and invasive not known]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: If 7mm is the measurement of the infiltrating duct portion of this cancer, assign extension code 13 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in Tumor Size].
If 7mm is the size of the whole malignancy and the size of the invasive portion cannot be determined, assign extension code 14 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. "Focal areas of in situ carcinoma" qualifies as minimal.
CS Size of Tumor/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How should these fields be coded for benign CNS tumors?
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.Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors]. Code the size of the tumor if specified. Otherwise code CS Tumor Size as 999 for benign CNS tumors.
Primary Site--Lymphoma: How should this field be coded when a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is found in the femur and in the soft tissue of the anterior chest wall but all CT scans are negative for lymphadenopathy?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site field to C809 [Unknown primary site]. The primary site of diffuse large B cell lymphoma can be either nodal or extranodal. The case described above is likely extranodal because there is no evidence of lymph node involvement. Because the extranodal site of origin is unknown, code the Primary Site to C809.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Is the histology coded as adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is adenocarcinoma but the colonoscopy report associated with the path states that the surgeon performed a polypectomy? See Discussion.
Histology: 3/04 Colonoscopy with polypectomy of a sessile appearing polyp. Path report: Final Dx: Adenocarcinoma; Micro: Adenocarcinoma apparently arising from the mucosa...noted to invade the muscularis mucosa into the submucosa.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007
Code this case to adenocarcinoma [8140]. The best source for histology is the final diagnosis on the path report from the procedure that removed the most tumor tissue. When there is a conflict, the path diagnosis has higher priority than the colonoscopy diagnosis for coding 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.
Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?
For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is "melanoma in situ."
The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.
Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:
Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]
Familial adenomatous colon polyposis
Familial colonic polyposis
Multiple familial polyposis
In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:
Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system
Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty
History of colectomy
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