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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion.
If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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, 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.
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.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.
However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.
Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the "Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy" field only relate to the "Surgery of Primary Site" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion.
Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]?
For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field "Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion.
The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4.
Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.
ACR website:
Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.
Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home