Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma with a mucinous component, the mucinous component is less than 50%"? See discussion.
For mucinous only, the tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous to be coded to the specific histology.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]. Because the mucinous component involves less than 50% of the tumor, the histology is not coded to mucinous. For mucinous only, the tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, to be coded to the specific histology.
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.
Other Therapy: What code is used to represent treatment with "Epithilone" or "Epothilone"?
Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)], until the exact mechanism of action is determined for this drug. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. It has a similar action to Taxol, but is derived from a different source.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for "invasive ductal carcinoma with squamous differentiation"? Is "squamous differentiation" synonymous with "squamous metaplasia"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8570/3 [Adenocarcinoma with squamous metaplasia]. Our pathology consultant agrees that squamous metaplasia is synonymous with squamous differentiation.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Major salivary gland: How do you code Surgery of Primary Site for a submandibular gland primary when the operative report refers only to an excision of the submandibular "tumor" while the pathology report states the submandibular "gland" was removed? See discussion.
The gross description on the pathology report indicates that the specimen consists of a "submandibular gland." A further description on the pathology report included, "the specimen was sectioned exposing a focally cystic mass that nearly replaces the entire specimen."
For cases diagnosed on 1/1/2003 or after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total parotidectomy, NOS; total removal of major salivary gland, NOS], per the pathology report's gross description of the specimen unless the operative report description of procedure indicates that the removal was less than total.
SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.
1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.
Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].
Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.
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.
EOD-Extension--Liver: Can we use CT scan descriptions such as "portal vein thrombosis" or "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver" to code extension for liver primaries? See discussion.
1. Would you code portal vein involvement for a CT scan description of "portal vein thrombosis"?
2. Would you code more than one lobe of the liver as involved for CT scan descriptions of "extensive infiltration of the liver" or "diffuse infiltration of the liver"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1. No. Thrombosis can be caused by non-cancerous conditions.
2. Yes. Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Multiple (satellite) nodules in more than one lobe of the liver] when "extensive infiltration" or "diffuse infiltration" is stated.
An official website of the United States government
Home