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: 07/03/2024 09:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021176 Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals "infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with "invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.

Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple 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
20021054 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "invasive ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and invasive lobular carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule 1 of the Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, because the tumor is both lobular and ductal.

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
20021015 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.

 2002
20020035

First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion.

If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"?

Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of "no disease" and all treatment fields coded to "no treatment" is allowable.

 2002
20021204 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.

If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.

 2002
20020050

EOD Clinical Extension--Prostate: Can you assign code 15 if there is no TURP and no physical exam? See discussion.

[Code 15 = Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g. for elevated PSA, (T1c)]

 Prostate case: Elevated PSA, Prostate u/s: no abnormal findings, Prostate biopsy: adenocarcinoma. Can this be clinically coded as 15? According to Prostate EOD Coding Guide (6/2001), code 15 requires documentation that the physical exam was negative, but in this case, we have no physical info.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD Clinical Extension field to 30-34 when there is no documentation saying that the physical examination was negative.

 2002
20021129 Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of "myelodysplastic syndrome" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.

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
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
20021023

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/EOD-Extension--Breast: How do you code extension when the tumor in the breast is in situ and the regional axillary lymph nodes are positive? See discussion.

For example, what extension code is used for a 4.5 cm DCIS (no invasive ca found in excisional biopsy or mastectomy specimen) with mets to 01/07 LNs?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 045 [4.5 cm]. Document how the size was determined in the EOD-Extension field.

Code the EOD-Extension field to 16 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size (size of invasive component not stated) AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known]. By virtue of the lymph node metastasis, this must be an invasive breast carcinoma. The size of the invasive component is unknown.

 2002