Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031140 | Primary site--Unknown & ill-defined site/Kidney: How should this field be coded when humeral metastases are compatible with renal cell carcinoma pathologically, no kidney lesion is found clinically and the physician's signout diagnosis is "no primary found, as of now unknown"? See Description. | Path states "biopsy of humerus, mets sarcomatoid carcinoma consistent with renal cell carcinoma." Material was sent to Mayo Clinic for consult & they state "with focus of clear cells, agree that a likely primary is renal cell carcinoma." Abdominal CT showed no abnormality in kidneys. When the registrar abstracted the case she spoke to the managing physician who told her that "no specific site was found and it was, as of now, unknown." This was stated about three months after dx. Can we code as a renal primary based on pathologic information or should we code unknown based on CT and physician's statement? | Code this case to C64.9 [Kidney, NOS]. ICD-O-3 rule H states that the topography code attached to a morphology term may be used when the topographic site is not given in the diagnosis. Topography code C64.9 is attached to morphology code 8312/3 [Renal cell carcinoma] in ICD-O-3. |
2003 |
|
|
20031025 | Histology (Pre-2007): Is a small cell undifferentiated carcinoma coded to 8041/34 [small cell carcinoma undifferentiated] or to 8045/34 [combination small cell AND undifferentiated carcinoma] using terms from the 2 columns in Appendix 1 of Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses? See discussion. | Per pathology report, diagnosis is small cell undifferentiated carcinoma in biopsies taken from the laryngeal surface of the epiglottis and left false vocal cord. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 8041/34 [small cell carcinoma, undifferentiated]. The diagnosis indicates that this is an undifferentiated small cell carcinoma, rather than a mixture of small cell carcinoma with undifferentiated carcinoma.
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 |
|
|
20031146 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. | Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." | 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 |
|
|
20031063 | Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description. | Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.
Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.
Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.
Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.
Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.
Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.
Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001. |
SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.
Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis. |
2003 |
|
|
20031039 | EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description. |
CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]? |
Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor. Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging. |
2003 |
|
|
20031056 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a patient with a remote history of lobular breast carcinoma, would a new diagnosis of lobular breast carcinoma with DCIS be a new primary, even though the physician designates it as recurrent? See Description. |
A history of right breast lobular ca in 1991 treated with a partial mastectomy. Diagnosed 3/02 with "recurrent right breast ca" per physician; pathology in 2002 is lobular and DCIS. Would the DCIS make this a new primary regardless of the physician's designation of 'recurrent' or is this the same primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002. The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case. 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 |
|
|
20031106 | Reportability--Appendix: Is an appendiceal carcinoid with one periappendiceal lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor reportable to SEER? See Discussion. |
The patient had an appendectomy followed by a hemicolectomy. No residual carcinoid tumor was identified but there was one lymph node positive for metastatic carcinoid tumor. |
Yes, this carcinoid is reportable to SEER. This carcinoid is malignant by virture of the lymph node metastasis. Code the behavior as /3. |
2003 |
|
|
20031186 | Immunotherapy/Radiation Therapy: Is I-131 labeled immunoglobulin coded as immunotherapy or radiation therapy? | Code treatment with I-131 labeled immunoglobulin as radiotherapy. The primary action is radiotherapeutic. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) uses antibodies to deliver the radiotherapy to the site of the tumor. | 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 |
An official website of the United States government
