Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent histology when the surgeon describes a sessile polyp and the final path diagnosis is stated as: "Rectal sessile polyp: Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma" (pathologist does not state that it is "arising in a sessile polyp")?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8210/3 [adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp]. The structure in which this adenocarcinoma is arising, is 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.
Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes: Can the AJCC TNM/Stage be used to help code these fields when there is limited text information in the medical record that describes the tumor involvement?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Yes, this staging information can be used to help code the SEER EOD fields but only if a physician does the TNM/Stage at the time of diagnosis and there is limited text information that describes tumor involvement.
Surgery of Primary Site: Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery? See discussion.
Many surgeons are doing exploratory surgery with laparoscopy involving a very small incision, but they can examine organs and take biopsies. Should laparoscopy be coded as exploratory surgery?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/1998 and later: Exploratory surgical procedures, such as laparoscopic surgeries, are not coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: For prostate cancer, can an elevated PSA be used to code metastasis? See discussion.
5/31/98 PE: 30 gm prostate with nodularity, suspicious for CA.
Final diagnosis: Stage D Ca of prostate with mets, NOS
PTA IVP: Normal collecting system
5/11/98 CXR: NED
PSA 86.3 Suggestive of prostate Ca per MD
5/13/98 TURP and bilat. orchiectomy: Plan was to perform orchiectomy as treatment of choice if biopsy was positive. Appears MD feels that the patient has mets, NOS based on the elevated PSA.
5/13/98 TURP Adenocarcinoma, PD
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, do not code the EOD-Clinical Extension field based on elevated PSA alone. If a recognized practitioner states that there is metastasis, then metastasis should be coded.
In this case, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because it is Stage D. But if you had D1 or D2 staging based on the involvement of lymph nodes, then that involvement would be coded under EOD lymph nodes and not under the clinical extension field.
EOD-Clinical Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension and lymph nodes for path only prostate cases treated with a TURP? Would clinical extension be coded to unknown or localized, NOS?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 30 [localized, NOS] and the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 0 [no lymph node involvement]. Per Note 7: Use code 30 when there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent but the tumor is confined to the prostate. This is an example of a case where there is insufficient information as to whether the tumor is clinically apparent or inapparent. Assume the tumor is confined to the prostate.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non-small cell carcinoma, NOS"? See discussion.
Should a non-small cell carcinoma histology be assumed to be a large cell carcinoma [8031/3] or should the histology be coded to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3]?
For tumor diagnosed 2001-2006: Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell 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.
EOD-Extension--Stomach: What code is used to represent this field for a stomach primary described as linitis plastica?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 30 [Localized, NOS], unless more information is known about the extent of tumor involvement. Coding the Histology field to 8142/3 [Linitis plastica] and the Size of Primary Tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more: Linitis plastica] identifies this diagnosis.
In the EOD-Extension field, the depth of invasion is the important characteristic to be coded. The 10 digit EOD corresponds to the AJCC Staging Manual in which the "T" is based on level of invasion. While a diagnosis of linitis plastica indicates a worse prognosis, it does not define the extent of infiltration. There is no luminal mass with linitis plastica. Instead, the entire gastric wall is thickened by tumor.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion.
Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ.
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