EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion.
Breast case described clinically as a "breast mass and nodal metastases" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement.
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.
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.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for "B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description.
Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification.
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.
EOD Extension--Lung: Do we ignore pericardial effusion seen on a CXR if a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor? See discussion.
Note 6 in the lung EOD scheme instructs us to assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done. Does this also apply to a pericardial effusion? For example, if a pericardial effusion is seen on CXR, and a subsequent lobectomy reveals only a localized tumor, should the effusion be ignored?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ignore pericardial effusion which is negative for tumor. Assume that a pericardial effusion is negative if a resection is done and the tumor is pathologically confirmed to be localized.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.
Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What are the correct site and histology codes for "tubal serous adenocarcinoma" identified in a fallopian tube? See Description.
The pathology report of a laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy states: 1.5 cm intraluminal mass left fallopian tube: micro: tubal serous adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, infiltrates the muscular wall of the fallopian tube; serosa does not appear to be penetrated. The left ovary is negative for malignancy.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma].
The primary site for this case is fallopian tube, not the suggested site code of ovary.
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