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 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.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Lymph Node fields: How do you code these fields if a pt has multiple lymph nodes surgeries at different times? See discussion.
Example: 1/01/03 Biopsy of 1 sentinel lymph node: positive for metastasis. 1/10/03 Modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection: ductal carcinoma with 8 neg lymph nodes.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 7. Code EOD Lymph Nodes field to 6. Code EOD Pathologic Number of Reg LN Positive and Examined fields to 01 and 09 respectively.
For the Scope of Reg LN Surgery use the highest applicable code number if more than one Scope of Reg LN Surgery was performed. The EOD lymph node fields are cumulative and count all lymph nodes removed during the diagnostic and first course treatment procedures.
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.
All Surgical Fields/Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Unknown Primaries: What codes are used to represent these fields for an unknown primary treated with a radical neck dissection followed by radiation therapy?
For unknown primaries treated with a lymph node dissection and diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after, code:
1) Surgery to Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment].
2) Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: 9 [Unknown or not applicable].
3) Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 1 [Surgery to other site(s) or node(s), NOS; unknown if regional or distant].
4) Radiation Sequence with Surgery: 3 [Radiation after surgery]. Any planned surgical treatment is used to code radiation/surgery sequence (per CoC I&R).
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].
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Are diagnoses of "infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" and "duct carcinoma, mucinous type" both coded to the histology code of 8523/3?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code "Infiltrating duct and mucinous carcinoma" to 8523/3 [Infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] according to the instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology in Appendix C of the 2004 SEER manual. Assign code 8523/3 when the diagnosis is duct carcinoma mixed with another type of carcinoma. Look for "and" or "mixed" in the diagnosis.
Code the Histology field for a "ductal carcinoma, mucinous type" to 8480/3 [Mucinous carcinoma].
The instructions for coding a single tumor with complex histology are to code the specific type if the diagnosis is "Duct carcinoma, _____ type."
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.
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.
Surgical Procedure of Other Site: Is the excision of a distant lymph node or a fine needle aspirate (FNA) of a distant lymph node coded as a Surgical Procedure of Other Site, even though they are performed for diagnostic purposes and not intended as treatment?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 3 [Non-primary surgical procedure to distant lymph nodes] for an excision of a distant lymph node because it is a surgical procedure. However, if only a fine needle aspirate of a distant lymph node is done, code this field to 0 [None].
Fine needle aspirates of regional lymph nodes are the only FNA biopsies to be coded in a surgery field (Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field). In addition, FNA biopsies of regional nodes are also included in the EOD-Number of Positive Regional and Examined Lymph Nodes fields.
An official website of the United States government
Home