Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: Can grade IV be implied for brain primaries with the histology of glioblastoma multiforme, even if there is no statement of grade in the path report? See discussion.
Dr. Platz has instructed the Iowa registry to code glioblastoma multiforme to grade IV, even when there is no corroborating statement of grade in the path report. This is also supported in some references.
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the absence of a stated grade on the pathology report. If a grade is stated, code the stated grade. SEER does not recommend adopting the rule in the Discussion.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent this field for a corpus primary (sounding 8 cm or less in length) treated with radiation prior to a hysterectomy that pathologically showed superficial myometrial invasion? Is it possible that the invasion could have been more extensive prior to the radiation treatment?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium, inner half] which represents the extension you know. In this particular case, there was no clinical evidence of extension outside the corpus. As long as the surgery was not performed because of disease progression, use information from the surgery to code EOD extension.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
EOD Fields--All Sites: Is EOD information limited to what is available exactly two months from the day of diagnosis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
EOD should include all information available within four months of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression or through completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment, whichever is longer.
Mets known to have developed after EOD was established should be excluded.
Date of Diagnosis--All Sites: Is it better to estimate the month in the date of diagnosis field using the re-excision pathology report date or code the month to unknown if the only available information is the re-excision date? See discussion.
The only available information is the following pathology report:
On 7/18/00 a wide excision of the primary lesion is done. The report reads, "Lesion approximately 1 cm. Residual superficial spreading malignant melanoma with deepest penetration 4 mm."
Code the Date of Diagnosis field to 07/2000 for this case. Estimate the month of diagnosis whenever possible.
Given the usual delay between the initial excision of the lesion and a wide excision for a melanoma, estimate the month of diagnosis as July.
First Course Treatment: If the patient receives no treatment at the time of diagnosis (either because it is not recommended or because the patient refused treatment at that time) but treatment is later instituted after disease progression, should this treatment be coded as part of the first course of treatment?
The SEER rules changed in 1998 regarding what constitutes First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy.
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: The First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy fields will all be coded to 0 [None] for these types of cases. The documented disease progression would stop the timeframe for inclusion of any treatment to be part of first course of therapy.
Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.
Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.
According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.
Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.
The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.
Priority Order for Coding Subsites
Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:
1 Pathology report
2 Operative report
3 Physical examination
4 Mammogram, ultrasound
If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.
An official website of the United States government
Home