EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Cervix: What codes are used to represent these fields for a cervix primary when the only information on lymph nodes is a CT of the pelvis showing "pelvic adenopathy" (no surgery was done)?
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown]. Code the Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 98 [No nodes examined] and the Lymph Nodes Examined to 00 [No nodes examined] because there was no resection of the primary organs. Adenopathy, NOS, per SEER guidelines, is not coded as lymph node involvement
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.
With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"?
No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable].
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--Lung: Should lung cases be counted as more than one primary when nodules removed from separate lobes of the same lung have either the same histology or they are different immunophenotypes of the same main histologic classification (e.g., adenocarcinoma)? See discussion.
1. Path report: "Two nodules (RLL, RUL) of primary pulmonary demonstrate adenocarcinoma with different histologic appearances and different immunophenotypes consistent with synchronous lung adenocarcinomas." Per ICC interpretation, two lung primaries are favored.
2. Path report: "Two peripheral nodules (LLL, LUL) demonstrate similar P.D. non-small cell carcinoma with features of large cell undifferentiated carcinoma."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to current SEER rules, both examples represent one primary because both tumors are in one lung and of a single histologic type. Code the Primary Site field to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] for both examples and the EOD-Extension field to 77 [Separate tumor nodules in different lobe]. This will capture the fact that there are multiple tumors within the lung for each of these examples.
Differences in immunophenotypes confirm independent de novo cancers and rule out metastasis. Immunophenotype differences do not equate to different histologies. In the first example described, there are different histologic features; however, the main classification is adenocarcinoma.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used for histology "tubular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma]. According to histology rule #2 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumor are present.
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.
Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent the histology "endometrioid carcinoma with squamous differentiation" for an endometrium primary?
For cases diagnosed 2004-2006:
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation is coded 8570 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia].
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/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?
For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.
The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.
The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.
Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion.
Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.
Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields.
An official website of the United States government
Home