EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex.
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].
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Would the simultaneously occurring histologies of "high grade ductal carcinoma in situ with micro invasion" and "keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma" be coded as two primaries or as a single primary when the pathologist is not clear whether two separate tumor masses exist?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries, assuming the tumors are separate and the margins are clear/negative. Code 8071/3 [Invasive squamous cell ca, keratinizing] and 8500/3 [Ductal carcinoma, "microinvasive"].
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)--Cervix: Is 8384/3 [adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] a specific histology type that must be stated or does it apply to any adenocarcinoma arising in the endocervical? Should the ICD-O-3 histology code of 8384/3 [Adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] be used for final diagnoses of "adenocarcinoma of the endocervix" or "adenocarcinoma of the cervix"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Histology code 8384 is for adenocarcinoma of endocervical type. This specific type (endocervical) must be part of the diagnosis in order to assign code 8384. This histology code is not to be used for Adenocarcinoma, NOS of the endocervix or cervix.
Adenocarcinoma of endocervical type can be diagnosed in other tissues and if so it will be stated as endocervical type. Adenoca of the endocervix would be coded to plain Adenoca.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How would this field be coded, using the revised and expanded breast code, for a lesion described as "1.3 cm infiltrating ductal carcinoma, associated DCIS?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code size of primary tumor as 013. The phrasing suggests that the infiltrating ductal carcinoma measures 1.3 cm. DCIS is also present, but no size mentioned.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion.
A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form.
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region].
The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative.
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.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology "mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma?" Is mucin-producing synonymous with mucinous?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8253 [Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous]. Mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma is best classified in ICD-O-3 as Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home