Primary Site/Summary Stage 2000/EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded when a CT Impression states: Large retroperitoneal/abdominal mass resulting in extra-hepatic biliary obstruction & bilateral urinary tract obstruction & encasement of major vessels most c/w lymphoma? See Discussion.
CT findings state: Very lg sft tiss mass encasing pancreatic head & portion of body, splenic & portal veins, celiac axis, sup mesenteric artery & bilateral renal veins. Two components to this mass: 1) retroperitoneal mass encasing great vessels and 2) peritoneal component 10.8cm size, displaces bowel & other structures & encases vessels.
If the physician stated "this is bulky disease" would that change the EOD?
For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:
Based on the information provided:
The topography code for this lymphoma is C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes].
Code SEER Summary Stage 2000 to 5 [Regional NOS].
Code EOD Extension to 20. More than one lymph node region below the diaphragm is involved (retroperitoneal and peritoneal). The organs mentioned are not involved by the lymphoma. The bulk of the masses is causing obstruction by displacing and/or encasing organs.
A physician description of "bulky disease" would not change the EOD for this case.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Should pancreatic neoplasia III (PanIN III) be coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ, NOS] or 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ]? See Description.
There is no specific morphology code for PanIN-III in the ICD-O-3. In the chapter for exocrine pancreas found in the sixth edition of AJCC cancer staging manual, pg 160, reference is made to PanIN-III and its inclusion with carcinoma in situ.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code PanIN-III (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia III) as 8500/2 [Ductal carcinoma in situ, includes DIN 3: Ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 3]. PanIN-III is a synonym for carcinoma in situ according to the WHO classification of Tumors and the College of American Pathologists' Protocol for exocrine pancreas. Do not code PanIN-I or PanIN-II as cancer.
For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, see SINQ 20110081 and 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.
First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Colon: Can "Sandostatin" be coded for treatment of carcinoid tumors of the colon because it flushes tumor cells from the colon in addition to controlling diarrhea?
Do not code Sandostatin (Ocreotide Acetate) as treatment. This is an ancillary drug used to treat symptoms of diarrhea. SEER Book 8 is undergoing revision and will include this change.
Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.
Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."
The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a skull tumor schwannoma an intracranial reportable benign tumor if the physician states it arose in the occipital nerve?
No. These schwannomas are not intracranial and therefore, are not reportable to SEER. The occipital nerve is not one of the 12 intracranial nerves (i.e., Abducens, Auditory (vestibulocochlear), Facial, Glossopharyngeal, Hypoglossal, Oculomotor, Olfactory, Optic, Spinal Accessory, Trigeminal, Trochlear, and Vagus).
CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded when a core needle biopsy removes the majority of the tumor? See Discussion.
Rule 4.j on page 128 of the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code the tumor size from a needle biopsy unless no residual tumor is found on further resection".
Example: 3/04/04 core biopsy Rt breast grade 1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma tumor size 0.8cm. 3/10/04 Lumpectomy: 3mm focus of residual infiltrating ductal carcinoma. If we can not take the size of the core needle biopsy, do we use the residual size of 3mm or the clinical size which was 1cm on mammogram?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Code the tumor size from the mammogram. Do not code the tumor size from the needle biopsy because residual tumor was present in the lumpectomy specimen.
Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery codes, NOS--Colon: What tissue specimens are included under this field's code 41 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy plus resection of contiguous organ; example: small bowel, bladder]? See Discussion.
How is site specific surgery coded for the following two cases?
Example 1. A right hemicolectomy normally includes a portion of ileum.
Example 2. Subtotal colectomy with bilateral oophorectomy.
Code 40 includes a right hemicolectomy. A right hemicolectomy normally includes a small portion of the terminal ileum removed with the ileocecal valve. Assign code 41 when resection of CONTIGUOUS organs goes beyond what would normally be removed as part of a subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy. Record non-contiguous organ resection in Surgical Procedure of Other Site.
Example 1: Surgery of Primary Site -- 40 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy].
Example 2: Surgery of Primary Site -- 40 [Subtotal colectomy/hemicolectomy]. Surgical Procedure of Other Site -- 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites].
Addendum July 2021
For coding Surgical Procedure of Other Site, see the instructions for determining regional vs distant sites in the 2021 SEER manual under Coding Instructions #6 and #7 on pages 184-185. Do not use Summary Stage to determine regional vs distant for this data item.
Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER?
"Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable.
Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?
If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.
An official website of the United States government
Home