EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent a non-Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with involvement of an extralymphatic organ and lymph nodes on the opposite side of the diaphragm?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 31 [30 + localized involvement of an extralymphatic organ or site; Stage III E].
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a groin mass excision containing 4 lymph nodes for a Kaposi sarcoma case that presented with multiple skin lesions?
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 99 99 for Kaposi cases that present systemically and for those that present in more than one site (which includes cases with more than one skin subsite involved at diagnosis). There are no "regional" lymph nodes for such cases. This represents a majority of currently diagnosed Kaposi cases. However, for localized Kaposi cases, you can count the number of regional lymph nodes positive and examined if the primary site selected has a regional lymph node chain(s) associated with it (e.g., soft palate, hard palate, or a skin subsite).
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the groin mass excision in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed; Non-primary surgical resection to other site(s), unknown if whether the site(s) is regional or distant].
Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?
These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.
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.
Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?
If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Colon: What codes are used to represent these fields when the pathology from a colon cancer resection describes 2/16 positive pericolonic lymph nodes and a "metastatic nodule in the pericolonic fat"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 03 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 17. Each grossly detectable nodule in the pericolonic fat is counted as one regional lymph node.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded if radiation to the primary site and/or regional lymph nodes is performed prior to surgery?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields per the information in the pathology report(s). Radiation to the primary site would not affect the status of the lymph node involvement. Radiation to the regional lymph node region may or may not affect the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. However, for these fields code the best information available about the status of the lymph nodes which is reflected in the pathology report(s).
Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.
Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.
According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.
Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.
The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.
Priority Order for Coding Subsites
Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:
1 Pathology report
2 Operative report
3 Physical examination
4 Mammogram, ultrasound
If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: What code is used to represent the histology and grade for "WHO-II astrocytoma, grade II" of the brain when the WHO-II classification is different from the classification systems previously used? See discussion.
According to the WHO-I classification system, this is a moderately anaplastic astrocytoma. According to the Duke criteria, this is an astrocytoma. By Dauma-Dupont criteria, this is a grade 2 astrocytoma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 9401/34 [anaplastic astrocytoma].
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