System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 07/19/2024 07:34 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021206 EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion. "insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.

 2002
20021087 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented when a1998 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord is followed by a 1999 diagnosis of in situ squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (called "recurrent" by the clinician), and in 2001 there is another invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal cord (no statement of recurrence)? Would your answer be any different if no statement of "recurrent" had been made in 1999?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code this case as two primaries, an invasive true vocal cord primary in 1998 and another invasive true vocal cord primary in 2001.

If there had been no statement of recurrence for the 1999 in situ diagnosis and the 1999 diagnosis was more than two months following the 1998 diagnosis, this case would be coded as three primaries.

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.

 2002
20021058

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When simultaneously diagnosed breast tumors of the same histology in the same breast are stated by the pathologist and/or clinician to be more than one primary, should these be reported as multiple primaries? See discussion.

For example, based on special pathology studies that showed a difference in appearance between tumors, a pathologist may state that two ductal, NOS tumors diagnosed at the same time in the same breast represent two primaries.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as a single primary. Follow the guidelines in the SEER Program Code Manual for determining multiple primaries. Simultaneous multiple lesions of the same histologic type in the same site (same breast) are a single primary for SEER, even though the pathologist may perform special studies and state that the patient has more than one primary.

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.

 2002
20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

 2002
20021175 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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.

 2002
20021130

EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.

Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.

 2002
20021100 Primary Site: How do we code the primary site for a malignancy that occurs in parenchyma located in an ectopic site? See discussion.

1. Patient presented with a subcutaneous nodule in right axilla. Pathologic impression by initial and reviewing pathologists is that the lesion represents a breast adenocarcinoma arising in ectopic mammary parenchyma. Subsequent breast biopsies were negative.

2. Patient presented with right branchial cleft cyst. The pathologist states the cyst is a primary thyroid adenocarcinoma arising in an ectopic focus of thyroid tissue. The subsequent total thyroidectomy is negative.

Code the primary site to the location of the malignancy.

1. Code the Primary Site field to C76.1 [Axilla NOS].

2. Code the Primary Site field to C10.4 [Branchial cleft].

 2002
20021090 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: How should the Primary Site field be coded when no resection is done and it is uncertain whether the primary site is in the ovary or the peritoneum? See discussion. CT: ascites, omental cake and peritoneal studding. H&P impression: probable ovarian or peritoneal primary. Repeat CT: no enlarged adnexal mass seen to suggest ca of ovary, but possibility couldn't be ruled out. Omental bx: Metastatic ca. Comment: "IHC stains have been performed and are not typical of ovarian ca, although do not exclude an ovarian primary." After the bx, there were two clinical diagnoses written a month apart with no evidence of further work-up between those dates. The first diagnosis was "ovarian ca". The second was "Peritoneal carcinomatosis 2 month ago; Primary is unknown, possibly ovarian."

Use the best information available to identify the primary site. In this case, it is the physician's clinical assessment. Code the Primary Site to C56.9 [Ovary] for this example because the ovary is indicated to be the primary site according to the physicians involved.

When there is no surgical procedure involving the removal of the ovaries, code the Primary Site based on the clinical assessment of the disease location. If the disease is only noted to be in the peritoneum, code site to peritoneum, NOS. If the disease is seen clinically in both the ovary and the peritoneum, code site to ovary.

 2002
20021081

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Many melanoma patients have multiple occurrences over time that are not called recurrent and often are even in the same skin subsite, some in situ only and others alternating between in situ and invasive. Should these multiple occurrences really be new primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Unless it is stated to be a RECURRENT or METASTATIC melanoma, record each melanoma as a separate primary when:

1. The occurrences are more than two months apart.

2. The fourth digit of the ICD-O topography code for skin [C44._] is different .

3. The first three digits of ICD-O-3 morphology code are different.

4. An in situ melanoma is followed by an invasive melanoma.

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.

 2002
20021112 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion. Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is "Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this case.

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.

 2002