Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion.
Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation.
The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval.
EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.
Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.
We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.
We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are mucinous cystic tumors of low malignant potential diagnosed in the left ovary in 12/2000 and in the right ovary in 7/2001 reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
Page 14 of the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, states that bilateral retinoblastomas and bilateral Wilms tumor are always single primaries whether simultaneous or not. Does this apply to bilateral ovarian tumors as well?
For cases diagnosed 2001-2006:
Borderline tumors are not reportable to SEER as of 2001. If you are collecting them in your registry, use the following procedure: Exception 1 in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, responds to the issue of processing ovarian tumors. Simultaneously occurring ovarian tumors with a single histology are coded as one primary. In the case you cite, the right ovary primary occurred 7 months after the left ovary primary. This is not simultaneous, so it would be counted as a second 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.
Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Pancreas: Should an embolization of liver metastasis for a pancreas primary be coded as treatment?
Code "embolization" (or hepatic artery embolization, HAE) to a metastatic site in Surgical procedure of Other Site. Assign code 1 [nonprimary surgical procedure performed].
This procedure was previously coded as other therapy, experimental. Code as surgery as of July 2005.
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.
Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion.
1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.
2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Both tumors are reportable to SEER.
1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].
2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].
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.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: If a named regional lymph node is aspirated should this field be coded to 1 [Regional lymph node removed, NOS], as is stated on page 127 of the SEER Program Code Manual, or should this field be coded to a more specific code when that is available (e.g. Lung primary code 3 [Ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal nodes])?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A generic scheme was created for the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field. As a result, there no longer are codes available that represent specific named lymph node chains. Code aspiration of a lymph node to 1 [Biopsy or aspiration of regional lymph node, NOS].
Histology (Pre-2007): What code should be assigned to acinar adenocarcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. According to histology rule #4 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, use a combination code if one exists.
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