EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a "focus of in situ"? See Description.
For example: needle bx diagnosis is "tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca." The lumpectomy path states "single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca." Can size be coded 001?
Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection.
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.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase "tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule"? See Description.
The physician staged to a pathology stage of T3. It appears the physician regards the following pathology statement to be equivalent to capsular invasion on the right side: "Tumor invades the fibrous tissue of the capsule on the right side where it approaches to within 1 mm. of the surgical margin." Should pathologic extension be coded to 42[unilateral extracapsular extension]?
Use the best information available to stage the case. In this case, the best information is the pathologist's description of the tumor extension rather than the AJCC stage.
For cases diagnosed 1995-2003: Extracapsular extension is not implied by the phrase in the question. Code the capsular involvement described to 32 [invasion into but not beyond the prostatic capsule] on the basis of the pathology report.
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" or "lymphoid areas" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description.
For an adenocarcinoma in the colon, under the "lymph node" section of the final path diagnosis it states "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" in addition to "one of two involved lymph nodes." The micro description states "There are multiple small lymphoid areas with tumor. A definite node excised from the mesentery shows...replacement of stroma and an additional very small node shows no tumor."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No, do not code tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas as lymph node involvement.
However, code lymph node involvement for this case as 3 [mesenteric, NOS] because a mesenteric node is involved.
Regarding tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas from our pathologist consultant: Unless the anatomy of lymph node is evident (sinuses, trabeculae, primary and secondary follicles) these aren't lymph nodes and should not be coded as such. Unless there is evidence to the contrary in the path report, I would suggest that this be considered intramural spread, not lymph node spread.
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.
Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for a markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm diagnosed by a fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area? See Description.
The diagnosis was made in Oct. 2002 by a CT guided fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area. The cytology report says:
a. positive for malignant cells, markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm.
b. It is impossible to tell from this aspiration biopsy whether or not this represents a high grade sarcoma or a high grade carcinoma, but our consensus opinion is that this lesion is a high grade carcinoma.
The combination of soft tissue topography and carcinoma morphology is Impossible by SEER edits. How should we code this?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the site to C76.3 [Pelvis, NOS]. Code the histology to 8010/34 [Carcinoma, NOS, high grade].
Unless there is better information available regarding the site, assign C76.3. The information provided above does not indicate the exact site of the mass.
Code the histology based on the consensus opinion stated above.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is this field coded when a patient has a reduction mammoplasty (for macromastia) and within the pathology specimen there is an incidental finding of carcinoma?
Code this reduction mammoplasty to the code which best fits the amount of tissue removed. Read the operative report carefully. Code as a partial mastectomy, skin- nipple- areola-sparing mastectomy, or total (simple) mastectomy. Use text fields to record the details.
Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].
According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, "the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, these are separate 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.
An official website of the United States government
Home