Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/Radiation Sequence with Surgery/Date Therapy Initiated: Is the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field used to code date of first therapy and radiation sequence with surgery? See discussion.
Example: There is no primary site surgery and only an aspirate of a lymph node and the date of therapy is based on this procedure.
Yes, the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field is used to code the Date Therapy Initiated field and the Radiation Sequence with Surgery field.
EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion.
"insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.
EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.
Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:
1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.
2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.
3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.
If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: Is 8316/3 [Cyst associated renal cell carcinoma] the appropriate code for 1) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, 2) Renal cell carcinoma mass with cystic areas and 3) Cystic renal cell carcinoma, clear cell type?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Yes, ICD-O-3 histology code 8316 is the correct code for the three examples above.
There are two categories of cyst-associated renal cell carcinomas: Renal cell carcinoma originating in a cyst, and Cystic renal cell carcinoma.
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): Do the terms "keratinizing" or "non-keratinizing" have to be present in the final diagnosis to use codes 8071 through 8073? See discussion.
Should "squamous cell carcinoma, small cell variant" be coded to 8073 even though the final diagnoses does not include the phrase "non-keratinizing?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
It is acceptable to assign code 8073/3 for squamous cell carcinoma, small cell, NOS. Code squamous cell carcinoma, large cell, NOS to 8072/3. Code to non-keratinizing unless the pathology report specifies keratinizing.
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.
Date of Diagnosis/Diagnostic Confirmation: How are these fields coded when a physician statement of diagnosis predates a positive biopsy? See Description.
A mass seen on EGD with negative biopsy 12/28/01. Needle core biopsies 1/14/02 were diagnostic of GIST. Gleevec treatment was initiated 2/02, and in discharge summary 5/27/02, the physician says the GIST was diagnosed on EGD.
Code the date of diagnosis as 01/2002. Code the diagnostic confirmation as positive histology. EGD revealed a "mass." Biopsies of the "mass" seen on EGD were negative before January 2002.
Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?
Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description.
Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size."
Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description.
In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.
Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only].
In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension.
An official website of the United States government
Home