SEER Inquiry System - Search

There are multiple SEER Notes in the Breast Surgery Codes of Appendix C instructing us to code tissue expanders as reconstruction but none address the type of reconstruction to be coded.

1. Is a tissue expander always equivalent to Implant reconstruction?

2. Is AlloDerm always equivalent to Tissue reconstruction?

3. Is the combination of AlloDerm and tissue expander always equivalent to Combined (tissue and implant) reconstruction?

The patient was diagnosed with a carcinoid tumor of the small intestine. The pre-surgical work-up also identified a lung nodule that showed no octreotide uptake, but was indeterminate on biopsy. The imaging differential diagnosis included carcinoid, hamartoma, or a non-calcified granuloma. The patient underwent a resection of the primary small bowel tumor, and the physician noted the lung nodule was of unclear diagnosis. The physician stated a solitary lung metastasis would be atypical, but that lung metastatic involvement could not be ruled out. The physician recommended resection of the lung nodule to ensure that the patient was disease free. The lung wedge resection proved a pulmonary hamartoma.

The rules for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site are not entirely clear. The definitions for First Course of Therapy in the SEER Manual do state that treatment includes, "Procedures that destroy or modify primary (primary site) or secondary (metastatic) cancer tissue." This would seem to exclude the lung resection as it did not destroy, modify or remove metastatic cancer tissue. However, the instructions for coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site do not address removal of distant sites that are not incidental. The lung resection was not incidental; the physician recommended it to ensure the lung was not involved, but it also disproved metastatic involvement. Should the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field be coded 0 (none) or 4 (non-primary surgical procedure to distant site) in this case?

This patient underwent a "partial decortication" per the operative report. While the operative report does not specifically note that this was performed with a partial pleurectomy, it appears the patient had a partial pleurectomy because the largest specimen removed was a "pleural peel" specimen, which included the parietal and visceral pleural surfaces with a small amount of underlying lung tissue. The operative report notes the patient had involvement of both the lung and chest wall. A total resection was not possible due to the extent of the tumor. However, this patient does appear to have undergone at least a partial resection of the pleura/tumor burden. The patient did not simply undergo a pleurodesis to free adhesions. Per the NCI's PDQ, pleurectomy and decortication are performed together. Because the operative report and pathology report only called this procedure a "partial decortication" without specifically mentioning a pleurectomy, would this be coded as a tumor excision (surgery code 20)? Or should we assume the procedure is best coded as a partial pleurectomy and decortication and use code 30 (simple/partial resection)?

Procedure: Nephrectomy

Laterality: Left

Tumor type: SOLID VARIANT RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

Nuclear grade: High grade (3/4)

Histologic grade: Poorly differentiated

Pattern of growth: Solid

Tumor size: 5x4.5x4cm

Local invasion: Present

Renal vein invasion: None

Surgical margins: Negative

Non-neoplastic kidney: Unremarkable

Adrenal gland: Not submitted

Lymph nodes: Not present

Pathologic stage: T1b

There are solid sheets of tumor cells without papillary structure. The tumor stains positive for Pax-2, negative for Ecadherin, P63 and CK7, consistent with renal cell carcinoma, solid variant.

Should it be coded to where the testis was physically at the time of diagnosis (C621), or should it be coded to C620 to reflect the increased risk for developing malignancy in an undescended testis?

The note explains: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) in 2004 revised its classification of VIN by eliminating VIN 1 and combining VIN 2 and VIN 3 into a single category (see table below). Classification of VIN (usual type) ISSVD [International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease]1986 classification 2004 classification VIN 1 VIN2 VIN3 VIN Note: VIN 2 and VIN 3 combined into single [non-graded] category, VIN Reference: Scurry J and Wilkinson EJ.  Review of terminology of precursors of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2006; 10(3):  161-169

The diagnosis date is 2/24/14.  The pathology report of the pancreas shows: Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), low grade (WHO G1 of 3). Addendum: Ki-67 confirms low grade of pancreatic endocrine tumor (less than 2% Ki-67/MIB-1 index). Chromogranin confirms the endocrine nature of the tumor. The Pre and Post Op Diagnosis is pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor consistent with insulinoma. AJCC Stage as noted on path report: pT1, pNX, pM.

The physician states: The patient has a well-documented insulinoma. Biochemistries confirmed the disease and it is localized in the tail of the pancreas.

The issue with NETs is that pathology report reflects what is seen or what is quantified under the microscope; often, there is a specimen without the accompanying medical history and clinical signs. Many of these NETs are specified on the basis of the hormone, as usually measured in the blood, that is overproduced, something not seen microscopically. All of the islet cell tumors are NETs. The insulinoma in the example above is a well-differentiated NET that is causing insulin to be over-produced. Thus, the diagnoses are not discordant; insulinoma is a more specific NET.