Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20021002 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ with comedo necrosis"? See discussion. | SEER distributed breast questions to the Advisory Group made up of pathologists from different SEER regions. One question dealt with the terms comedo type, comedo necrosis and comedocarcinoma. Per the Advisory Group, "Do not code comedo necrosis. These three phrases each represent a different level of diagnosis and can't be compared. "Comedocarcinoma" is an established diagnosis of in situ carcinoma and should be coded as such. "Comedo type" refers to a type of intraductal cancer; whether it is considered to be a true diagnosis is probably still equivocal. "Comedo necrosis" refers to a description of cellular pathological events that occasionally occur within an intraductal tumor of comedo type, which should not be coded at all."
Per the SEER preferred answer: Comedo type = comedocarcinoma. Ignore comedo necrosis. |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/2 [ductal carcinoma in situ].
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 |
|
|
20021101 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: How do we code these fields for a tumor that is predominantly a "well differentiated liposarcoma" [8851/31] that has a less predominent type of "dedifferentiated liposarcoma" [8858/33]? If we code the predominant cell type [8851/3] and the worst grade [3], the case will not pass edits because well-differentiated liposarcoma requires a differentiation code of 1. See discussion. | Example: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with the following features: size 22 cm, FNCLCC grade 3 of 3 [high grade]. Path comment: The tumor consists of predominantly well-differentiated sclerosing subtype liposarcoma and areas of high grade spindle cell (non-lipogenic) sarcoma. The area of high grade spindle cell sarcoma measured up to 7.5 cm. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8858/33 [Dedifferentiated liposarcoma, grade 3]. The pathologist gives a final designation of Dedifferentiated liposarcoma and then provides further details in the comment that do not negate the final designation.
Grade is usually coded independent of the cell type. There are a few Catch-22 situations, like this one, in which the grade is built into the name of the cell type.
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 |
|
|
20021046 | Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: If an in situ lesion of the urinary bladder involves the von Brunn nests, is it still in situ? See discussion. | Von Brunn nests: Compact, rounded aggregates of urothelial (transitional) cells in the lamina propria, with or without connection to the surface epithelium. Urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in situ...may involve von Brunn nests... Histologic Typing of Urinary Bladder Tumours, Second Edition, WHO, pp 12 & 21 |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Behavior Code and the EOD-Extension field according to the pathology report.
If the pathology report states the tumor to be noninvasive or in situ, whether or not von Brunn nests are involved, code behavior as 2 [in situ] and extension as in situ.
If the tumor is described as invasive and involves the von Brunn nests, code the EOD-Extension field to 15 [invasive tumor confined to subepithelial connective tissue] because code 15 includes extension to the lamina propria and von Brunn nests are within the lamina propria. |
2002 |
|
|
20021036 | 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. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021201 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:
1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone. 2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT). 3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).
If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].
If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I]. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021172 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.
Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example. |
2002 | |
|
|
20021022 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non oat cell carcinoma"? | For tumors diagnosed 2001-2006:
Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small cell carcinoma] if the pathologist does not provide a more specific histologic type. "Non oat cell" is a synonym for "non-small cell."
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 | |
|
|
20021126 | 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. |
2002 |
|
|
20020058 | Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Would one primary be reported when adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp NOS [8210/3] and adenocarcinoma arising in a tubulovillous adenoma [8263/3] were simultaneously diagnosed in the sigmoid colon (first 3-digits of the histology are different)? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code as one primary. Code the Histology field to 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma]. Count as a single primary and code the more specific term when simultaneous lesions are present and one lesion is an "NOS" term and the other is a more specific term. "Polyp" is an NOS term. Adenoma is an associated term, but is more specific (Tubulovillous adenoma is more specific than "polyp"). 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 | |
|
|
20021139 | Date of Diagnosis/EOD-Extension--Placenta: How do you code these fields for a patient who presents with a vaginal metastatic lesion for a placenta primary? Should EOD-Extension be coded to 60 [Other genital structures NOS: vagina, ovary, broad ligament, fallopian tube] or 85 [metastasis other than lung]? See discussion. | Pt had D&C Feb 5 with features of complete mole. On March 7, pt seen for a mass just inferior to the urethral meatus. At path, vaginal introitus fragments were consistent with choriocarcinoma. At time of March 23 admit for chemo, history is given as large hydatidiform mole evacuated Feb 5. Her beta hCG titers initially fell but approximately one month later hCG titers rose. At that time, she had an obvious vaginal metastatic lesion. | For cases diagnosed 1998 or after: Code the Date of Diagnosis field to March 7, which is the date that the choriocarcinoma was first diagnosed. There was no slide review or clinical statement that the first occurrence was obviously malignant. Therefore, the vaginal mets is not progression and is codeable as extension. Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [other genital structures, NOS] according to the current EOD scheme for placenta. Even though the mass is discontinuous, it is still included in code 60 per the guidelines of the FIGO system on which the EOD is based. | 2002 |
An official website of the United States government
