Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031145 | EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. | Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. | 2003 |
|
|
20031204 | Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded for cryosurgery of the breast? | For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For cryosurgery alone, without a pathology specimen, assign site-specific surgery code 19 [Local tumor destruction, NOS]. Cryosurgery, cryotherapy or cryoablation uses extreme cold to destroy the tumor cells. If a specimen is sent to pathology use code 20 [Partial mastectomy, NOS] rather than code 19. If cryosurgery is followed by further surgery, do not use code 19. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031073 | EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description. | The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement. | 2003 |
|
|
20031117 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description. |
On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site. Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM. The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031138 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. | Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. | 2003 |
|
|
20031031 | Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?" |
Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia. Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary. Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031206 | EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description. | Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown. | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis]. | 2003 |
|
|
20031081 | Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field? | Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031211 | EOD-Extension--Thyroid: Is this field coded as involvement of the thyroid capsule if the thyroidectomy path specimen reveals papillary thyroid ca "tumor present within capsular blood vessels?" |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Tumor present within the blood vessels of the thyroid capsule is localized (extension code 30). The tumor has not penetrated the capsule itself if it is contained within the blood vessels. Keep in mind that tumor size determines the extent of disease for thyroid extension codes 10, 20, 30 and 40. |
2003 |
An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
