Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Should an invasive malignancy following an in situ malignancy by more than two months be a new primary? Why? See discussion.
Example: An in situ bladder case was diagnosed and treated. Three months later another TURB diagnosed an invasive bladder carcinoma. Is the invasive case reportable to SEER as a new primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes. These are two primaries.
In situ cancers are not included in SEER incidence rates. Incidence rates must correlate with mortality rates.
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/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion.
The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."
Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "prostatic duct carcinoma"? See discussion.
Should the histology be coded to duct carcinoma [8500/3] or endometrioid carcinoma [8380/3]? Prostatic duct carcinoma is defined as endometrioid carcinoma; however, sometimes the pathology report describes the histology as being only "prostatic duct carcinoma."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If there is no mention of endometrioid carcinoma in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. If "endometrioid carcinoma" is mentioned in either the final diagnosis or in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8380/3 [endometrioid carcinoma].
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 codes are used to represent the histology "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma" and "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous glandular polyp"? See discussion.
Should histology be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] or 8261/3[adenocarcinoma arising a villous adenoma] or 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villoglandular adenoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule D in the Coding Complex Morphology Diagnoses: "Code the morphology with the highest code."
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 "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion.
If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?
See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. "
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.
When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.
If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].
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 Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.
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.
1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)?
2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)?
1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because "grade" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9.
Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].
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