Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field when the only grade/differentiation given is "low grade", "intermediate grade" or "high grade"?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.
Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
EOD-Extension--Lung: If a CT scan indicates that a patient has evidence of "long-standing pneumonia," is that synonymous with "pneumonitis" for the purposes of coding extension for lung primaries?
No. These terms are not synonymous. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, disregard the pneumonia and use the other available information to code extension.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, "B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... " Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features"? See discussion.
Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should "sarcomatoid" be interpreted as sarcoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in 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.
Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"?
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.
Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:
Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.
Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.
Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.
The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.
Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home