System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/27/2024 19:23 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031006 EOD/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If a melanoma primary site is other than skin, vulva, penis, or scrotum should these fields be coded using melanoma schemes? See discussion. Should a melanoma of the cervix be coded using the melanoma or the cervix schemes for these fields? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use the EOD and surgery code schemes for cervix uteri. The EOD scheme for melanoma excludes melanoma of the cervix uteri. The surgery code scheme for skin excludes cervix uteri. 2003
20031158

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Trachea/Lung: Would synchronous lesions, of the same histology, diagnosed in the right upper lobe of the lung and trachea be a single primary when the physician feels they are two separate primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to SEER rules, abstract as one primary because although these sites have separate topography codes in ICD-O-3, they were coded to the same three-digit topography code in the first edition of ICD-O (SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Edition, page 8, Exception B). Simultaneous lesions of the same histology in trachea and lung are one primary. Code the primary site to C399 [Ill-defined sites within respiratory system].

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
20031053 Reportability/History (Pre-2007)/Behavior Code--Ovary: Should the matrix principal in Rule F be applied to code a 2002 right ovary case to 8462/3 [Papillary serous borderline ovarian tumor] when peritoneal washings reveal the same histology?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Do not apply the matrix principle in this case. This ovarian tumor is not reportable (behavior /1 per ICD-O-3). The peritoneal washings reveal the same histology (/1), rather than malignant cells. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence to support changing the behavior code.

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
20031142 Other Therapy/Immunotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should erythropoietin be coded for leukemia or other hematopoietic diseases? Do not code Erythropoietin as treatment, it is used as an ancillary drug for leukemias or other hematopoietic diseases. Record information about erythropoietin in the text field. 2003
20031210 Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is there a hierarchy for selecting which code to use when a patient receives more than one type of "other treatment"? See Description. Patient was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome, probably refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia. Good candidate for investigational studies for transfusion-dependent patients. Patient was enrolled in a high dose vitamin D study. Patient also received transfusions.

SEER has not established a hierarchy of the codes listed under Other Treatment. If the patient receives more than one type of other treatment as the first course of treatment, assign the code that provides the most information about how the patient was treated and use the remarks fields to explain.

Code Other Treatment for the case example above as 2 [Other experimental therapy]. Use the remarks fields to describe the transfusions and vitamin D therapy.

 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
20031060

Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Because histology 9895/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia] was recognized as a distinct entity by WHO with too few cases of the subtypes [with or without prior MDS] to warrant separate histology codes for each, should the wording for the non-bold definitions in ICD-O-3 be changed to the following in both the alpha and numeric sections? See Description.

AML with multilineage dysplasia and prior MDS

AML with multilineage dysplasia and without prior MDS

How do we code histology for the following case of AML?

Patient was admitted for profound anemia and thrombocytopenia with

no immediate explanation. Path final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy: acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Per micro description: findings are

characteristic of AML that appears to be arising within the context of a myelodysplastic syndrome. The discharge diagnosis (2 days after bone marrow biopsy) read: myelodysplastic syndrome with profound anemia and

thrombocytopenia.

Do we code the histology per the final path diagnosis (code 9861/3)?

Using the current version of ICD-O-3, we could arrive at a histology code of 9895/3 based on the micro findings of AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome. However, per the above-mentioned SEER e-mail, we would not because there was no mention of multilineage dysplasia.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:To assign code 9895, it is important that the diagnosis includes "multilineage dysplasia." Use code 9895 when the diagnosis is with or without prior (not concurrent) myelodysplastic syndrome AND multilineage dysplasia. Acute myeloid leukemia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome and without multilineage dysplasia is coded 9861 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS].

Although the wording of 9895 cannot be changed, coders can make a note that the synonyms are intended to include:

-Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia with prior myelodysplastic syndrome

and

-Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome.

The histology code for the case example is 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS].

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.

 2003
20031189 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Would a papillary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid diagnosed approximately 2 1/2 years after a papillary carcinoma of the left lobe be coded as a second primary? See Description.

8/31/1999: papillary carcinoma, left lobe thyroid, treated with lobectomy.

1/17/2002: papillary carcinoma, right lobe, treated with lobectomy, completion thyroidectomy.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this is a second primary. The second papillary carcinoma was more than 2 months after the first and not specified as recurrent or metastatic.

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
20031113 Primary site/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for this type of primary site when a tumor excision and lymph node dissection is performed? See Description. Patient had a left parotidectomy w/ neck dissection in 02/2003. Findings showed a 10x5cm neck mass over the angle of the mandible as well as a 1.5 cm level 4 mass. Path showed invasive mod diff squamous cell ca. with posterior soft tissue margin positive for tumor; small portion of salivary gland had no tumor. Metastatic SCCa in 5 of 34 lymph nodes of neck dissection; no tumor in parotid lymph nodes. Pathology report says this could be a parotid carcinoma because the bulk of the disease is in the parotid, but it could also be metastatic...correlate with clinical findings. Doctor calls this unknown primary of the head and neck. Is this C80.9 or C76.0?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The data item "Surgery of Primary Site" is intended to record only surgeries of the primary site. If the primary site is unknown or ill-defined, it is impossible to determine whether or not a particular surgery was performed on the primary site. "Surgical Procedure of Other Site" collects much less specific information; however, this is the correct data item to record surgery performed when the primary site is unknown or ill-defined.

For the case example, code the primary site as C76.0 [Head, face or neck, NOS]. Code Surgery of Primary Site as 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, with or without surgical treatment]. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site as 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed].

 2003
20031125

Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.

Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?

Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.

This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].

 2003