Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20031032 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description. | Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia. Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment. |
Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis. When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case. Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia. Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. |
2003 |
|
20031045 | Other Therapy: How do we classify "thalidomide" when it is given as cancer directed therapy? | Code to the appropriate code (1, 2 or 3) under Other Therapy, depending on whether the drug was given as part of a clinical trial. If not part of a clinical trial, assign code 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy]. Thalidomide is not FDA approved for treating cancer. It is under investigation for anti-angiogenesis effects in different cancers. |
2003 | |
|
20031090 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/First Course Treatment--Breast: How is tumor size coded when preventative tamoxifen treatment precedes breast cancer diagnosis? Can we code the tumor size from the surgical specimen? Is tamoxifen treatment here? See Description. |
What is the tumor size in this situation? Patient is on the STAR trial (preventative tamoxifen for women with high risk for breast cancer). Patient develops breast cancer and has surgery. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the surgical pathology report. Do not code this preventative tamoxifen as first course cancer-directed treatment. This tamoxifen was part of a clinical trial intending to delay or prevent beast cancer from developing. |
2003 |
|
20031087 | EOD-Extension--Lymphoma/Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a primary brain lymphoma that is described as multi-focal? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since brain is the only site involved in this example, assign code 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site]. | 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 |
|
20031051 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: What code is used to represent the histology "Ewing's Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET)"? See Description. | A comment on one path report states "some authors consider both Ewing's & PNET to be the same biologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 & 22." The pathologists at our children's hospital agree with this statement and contend that the two should have the same histologic code. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, NOS.
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 |
|
20031115 | EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Extension: Does extracapsular lymph node extension into adjacent tissue or organs affect EOD coding? See Description. | For a lung primary a PET scan showed marked uptake in the right hilum consistent with metastatic disease. A radical pneumonectomy was performed and the operative findings showed that the pulmonary artery was involved with a mass. Pathology: Small cell carcinoma in the lung parenchyma. The distal bronchi showed obstructive pneumonitis. There were mets found on 02/05 on the hilar lymph nodes and 00/02 peribronchial nodes. The mets in the hilar nodes extended beyond the lymph node capsule into the pulmonary artery. |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Extracapsular lymph node extension does not affect the extent of disease. Code the extent of regional lymph node involvement in EOD lymph nodes. | 2003 |
|
20031057 | Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: How is this field coded for a five grade system? See Description. | Example: Invasive, high grade transitional cell carcinoma (Grade 4-5/5) | For this example, code grade as 4 based on the term "High grade." If "high grade" was not stated, the grade would be coded as 9, not determined. There is no SEER translation between the ICD-O grades and a five grade system for bladder. None of the pathololgist experts we querried knew of a five grade system for bladder. | 2003 |
|
20031030 | Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19? | Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum. According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower. |
2003 | |
|
20031095 | 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. |
2003 |