EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are micrometastases in the lymph nodes, found only on immunohistochemical staining, coded as positive lymph nodes?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code as positive lymph nodes that have micrometastases diagnosed ONLY on immunohistochemistry. By traditional diagnostic methods, these are still negative lymph nodes.
Summary Stage and EOD ignore the IHC positive micrometastases for cases diagnosed through 2003. The collaborative staging system that begins with 2004 cases and is based on the sixth edition of TNM addresses this issue.
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should this field be coded to 45 [wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS], 46 [with margins between 1 and 2 cm], or 47 [with margins greater than 2 cm] for a skin primary diagnosed in 2003 when margins are stated exactly as 2 cm?
Use code 46 [Wide excision...with margins more than 1 cm and less than 2 cm] when margins are exactly 2 cm.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion.
We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation....
Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct.
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-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.
(Primary site = larynx)
9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.
The term "lymphadenopathy" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.
Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.
Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.
Grade, Differentiation: Is grade always coded to 4 for a diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma?
Do not code the ICD-O-3 grade for Ewing sarcoma unless documented in the record.
In the TNM system, grade is required to place Ewing sarcoma into a stage group. For TNM staging purposes, Ewing sarcoma is classified as G4. Do not apply TNM rules to ICD-O coding.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When both the path and clinical diagnoses simultaneously reflect reportable diagnoses but one is a worse form of the same disease process, which diagnosis do we code? See Description.
Would this case be coded to RAEB or AML? Bone marrow diagnosis: Hypercellular marrow with profound trilinieage dyspoietic changes. Comment: the features are consistent with RAEB. Clinical diagnosis five days later states: Myelodysplastic syndrome, early acute myelocytic leukemia (likely AML).
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:When several diagnoses are made as part of the diagnostic process within two months, code the one with the worst prognosis.
Code the case example as acute myelocytic leukemia.
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.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home