Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031201 | Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the diagnoses "myelodysplastic syndrome," "myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" and "myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" all reportable to SEER for diagnosis 2001 and later? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:"Myelodysplastic syndrome" (NOS) is reportable to SEER--ICD-O-3 code 9989/3. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, thrombocytopenia" is not reportable to SEER because "thrombocytopenia" is not reportable. "Myelodysplastic syndrome, anemia" is not reportable to SEER because "anemia" is not reportable. 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 | |
|
|
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 | |
|
|
20031188 | 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. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031055 | 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031062 | Primary Site--Melanoma: How would this field be coded for a pleural effusion consistent with metastatic melanoma and "no skin lesions?" | Code primary site as C44.9 [Skin, NOS]. ICD-O-3 does not list a suggested site code for 8720/3 because melanoma can arise in other parts of the body. However, C44.9 [Skin, NOS] is the default when the primary cannot be found. | 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 |
|
|
20031030 | Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19? | Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum. According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower. |
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 |
|
|
20031092 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: How is the histology of invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis coded? Could high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type be a recurrence of ductal carcinoma diagnosed 18 years earlier? Is "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" one or two primaries? See Description. |
A patient was diagnosed in 1984 with 1st breast primary, histology was ductal carcinoma, T1N0, LIQ left breast. In 2002 a mass was found on mammogram, MRM with axillary sampling performed. Histology was invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type, nuclear grade 3/3, T2N1, UOQ left breast. Is the ductal carcinoma in situ recurrent disease from the 1st primary? Does it go with the lobular histogenesis, i.e., lobular carcinoma and DCIS histology code 8522/3 or is the ductal in situ a 3rd primary? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant: Invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis appears to be an unusual histology for a breast primary. Code it as such 8041 [Small cell carcinoma, NOS]. The 2002 lesion is most likely a new primary since the previous lesion was 18 years ago, in a different quadrant, and invasive. A comedo DCIS would probably not be asymtomatic for 18 years; an unlikely "recurrence" of an earlier ducal carcinoma. Code "invasive small cell carcinoma of lobular histogenesis, high grade ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo type" as two primaries. Code the small cell as a separate primary (8041/3), and the DCIS separately (8501/2).
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 |
|
|
20031032 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: How should diagnostic confirmation of Hematopoietic diseases be coded in the absence of positive bone marrow? See Description. | Case 1. Patient admitted 9-12-02 with diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia. Per the H&P, patient obviously has had this since January 2001. Per the clinical history: patient with elevated platelets. Path diagnosis of bone marrow biopsy done 9-20-02 showed mildly increased megakaryocytes. 10-31-02 clinical sign-out diagnosis was: essential thrombocythemia. Case 2. Patient admitted for evaluation of erythrocytosis. Assessment: Increased hematocrit only. It is most likely that patient has polycythemia vera. I think it is reasonable to initiate phlebotomy treatment. |
Code 1, Positive histology, includes diagnostic hematologic findings and peripheral blood smears when these are the basis for diagnosis. When the clinician makes a specific diagnosis and the blood work is not diagnostic, code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. The clinician is putting together all evidence, including the blood work and using his/her professional experience to diagnose the case. Case 1. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. Megakaryocytes are the immature form of thrombocytes, but mildly increased megakaryocytes are not diagnostic of essential thrombocythemia. Case 2. The diagnosis is not based on microscopic findings. Assign code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only]. |
2003 |
An official website of the United States government
