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.
Histology (Pre-2007): Can adenocarcinoma in either a villous or tubulovillous polyp or adenoma be coded as histology for sites other than colon or rectum? See discussion.
When adenocarcinoma of the endometrium arises in a villoglandular polyp is the histology coded as 8263/3?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Histology codes 8261 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma] and 8263 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma] are used for non-colorectal sites when the cancer arises in a polyp.
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-Extension--Cervix: How do you code tumor extension described as "the in situ lesion extends from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina"? See discussion.
Example: Cone biopsy of cervix and vaginal vault both show ca in situ. The op report stated: "lesion extending from the left lateral portion of the cervix onto the left lateral portion of the vagina." The pathologist stated it "appeared to be an in situ lesion extending from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Primary Site to C53.9 [Cervix uteri] and the EOD-Extension filed to 00 [in situ]. In situ is a measurement of invasion. Extension of the cervical in situ carcinoma via the mucosa to the vagina does not affect the EOD extension code.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.
For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.
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.
EOD-Extension: There is a one to many relationship between T values in TNM staging and SEER EOD-Extension values (one T value can be coded to many extension values). For most situations, we can typically code EOD-Extension to the lowest value in the range available for that T value per the SEER guidelines. But, what happens if another tumor feature, such as tumor size, was involved in the assignment of a T value? See discussion.
Example: Physician stages lung tumor as T2. The lowest extension code, 20, doesn't precisely fit the guidelines for a T2 tumor because the T2 stage may be based on the size of the tumor, which doesn't have anything to do with the EOD-Extension field. Should EOD-Extension be coded to 30 rather than 20?
The criteria for AJCC stage T2 consists of both size and tumor extension values. Size of tumor is recorded in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. If you determine that size is the physician's sole criteria for assigning a T2 value, code an EOD-Extension value that reflects more specific information than 30 [localized, NOS]. Code to 10 or 25, depending on the case.
If the tumor size is not provided, and there is only a clinician statement that describes the lung tumor as a stage T2, code EOD-Extension to 20, the numerically lowest equivalent EOD-Extension code for the lung T2 category.
Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries?
Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034].
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals "well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.
For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home