Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20020024 | Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable? | For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.
Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries. |
2002 | |
|
|
20020030 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. | How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.
2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned. |
2002 |
|
|
20021111 | Histology/Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Do you agree with coding a diagnosis of Nasal NK/T cell lymphoma to 9719/38? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 8 [NK cell] rather than 5 [T-cell]. Code the Histologic Type to 9719/38 [NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal and nasal-type with Cell indicator of NK (8)]. 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 | |
|
|
20021142 | Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? | Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. | 2002 | |
|
|
20021199 | Primary Site/Surgery of Primary Site--Lymphoma: What codes are used in these fields when both regional lymph nodes and an extra-nodal site are involved with lymphoma and there is not a clear statement from the clinician as to the primary site? See discussion. |
In our registry, we code the primary site for such cases to the extra-lymphatic site if there is one extra-nodal site involved with disease and the patient does not have disseminated involvement of multiple extra-nodal sites. Is this correct? Example: A patient with a submandibular lymphoma and involved nodes undergoes a salivary gland excision and a modified radical neck dissection yielding 100 nodes. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Primary Site to C08.0 [submandibular gland] and use the surgery code schemes that apply to that site (Parotid and Other Unspecified Glands). Physiologically, lymphoma cells in regional lymph nodes do not "back-flow" into the extralymphatic organ to involve it secondarily. As a result, the primary site is usually the extralymphatic organ with regional lymph node involvement. Do not be afraid to code an extralymphatic site as primary when that site and its regional nodes are involved. If the lymph nodes are not regional to the extra-nodal involved site and the primary site cannot be determined, code the primary site to C77.9 [Lymph node, NOS]. 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 |
|
|
20020044 | Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion. |
Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex. |
SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland. |
2002 |
|
|
20021143 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Should just one primary be reported when only ductal carcinoma in situ is diagnosed initially but the mastectomy performed as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy, but more than 2 months after diagnosis, contains a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma? See discussion. | How do we code this case in light of the EOD guideline that states we include all information collected within 4 months of diagnosis or through the completion of first surgery in the absence of disease progression when coding. | For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Report this case as one invasive primary, unless stated to be two primaries by the clinician. This appears to be a single primary with different behaviors, rather than separate tumors.
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 |
|
|
20020016 | Primary Site (Pre-2007)--Prostate/Prostatic Urethra: What code is used to represent primary site for an "adenocarcinoma with spindle cell differentiation" of the prostatic urethra? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Primary Site field to C61.9 [prostate] because the histology is adenocarcinoma.
When a malignancy is identified in the prostatic urethra, look at the histology to determine the primary site. If it is a transitional cell carcinoma, code the Primary Site field to C68.0 [urethra] and if it is an adenocarcinoma, code to C61.9 [prostate].
The EOD scheme is ultimately collapsed into the TNM scheme. The TNM system differentiates between adenocarcinoma of the prostate and transitional cell carcinoma of the urethra. Only adenocarcinoma of the prostate is staged by the prostate scheme. Transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra is coded to C68.0 [urethra] and staged with that scheme.
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 | |
|
|
20020049 | EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned "thickening" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical "thickening" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report. | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
