CS Site Specific Factor 4--Prostate: If PAP is not mentioned in the chart, should Site Specific Factor 4 be coded to 999 [unknown or no information] or 000 [test not done]?
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.For tumors diagnosed 2004 only:
Code the CS Site Specific Factor 4 to 999 [Unknown or no information; Not documented in patient record]. If there is no report of a lab test in the health record, code as 999.
Code this field to 000 [Test not done] when there is a statement in the record that a test was not performed.
Tumors diagnosed 1/1/2005 forward no longer have PAP coded in the Site Specific Factor 4 field.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is best used to represent a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma, matrix producing type." The tumor shows poorly differentiated infiltrating duct carcinoma and myxoid, cartilaginous stroma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, metaplastic carcinoma is a type of epithelial breast tumor. Matrix producing carcinoma is a synonym of metaplastic carcinoma. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for matrix producing 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.
Primary Site--Bladder: What subsite is used for fundus of the bladder?
As of November 2005, Code fundus of bladder to C678 [overlapping lesion of bladder]. Opinions vary regarding the definition of bladder "fundus." However, according to our pathologist consultant, fundus includes posterior, anterior and lateral walls and dome. Fundus does not include the trigone.
A correction to page C-595 of the 2004 SEER manual will be included in the next errata.
Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?
Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.
Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable?
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable.
The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer.
CS Extension--Retinoblastoma: When the degree of extension differs between the retinas, how is extension coded for simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?
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.Assign the CS extension code that corresponds to the greatest level of extension seen in either eye, excluding information from enucleation.
Record extension based on enucleation in Site Specific Factor 1.
Record bilateral disease under laterality. For retinoblastomas, bilaterality is not a component or consideration for staging.
CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Breast: How are nodes positive/examined coded for a positive FNA of a lymph node followed by a subsequent lymph node dissection? See Discussion.
A breast cancer patient had an FNA of an axillary lymph node positive for metastases. A modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection showed six lymph nodes negative for metastases.
Example 1: Patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to mastectomy and lymph node dissection.
Example 2: Patient received no neoadjuvant therapy.
This question is answered for EOD in SINQ 20031059. What is the answer for Collaborative Stage?
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.Include all nodes examined by the pathologist in Regional lymph nodes positive and Regional lymph nodes examined, unless there is disease progression. These fields are cumulative -- record the total number of regional nodes positive and examined during first course of treatment. Preoperative treatment does not affect the coding of these fields.
An FNA alone, positive for regional lymph node metastasis is coded as 95 for number positive and 95 for number examined.
For the case examples above, assuming there has been no disease progression, include all nodes positive and all nodes examined from both the FNA and the lymph node dissection in the counts. Code number of regional nodes positive as 01, number examined as 07 for both examples.
CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion.
7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.
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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].
Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be 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.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: Is the largest focus or the total area coded for tumor size in a patient presenting with "scattered foci of DCIS, largest focus measuring 0.6cm. DCIS spans a total area of 2.1cm."
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 size of the largest focus in CS tumor size. Code the tumor size for this case as 006 (6mm or 0.6cm).
An official website of the United States government
Home