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.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion.
Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists.
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.
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 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 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 Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion.
Path final diagnosis states: "No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section." Path micro states: "Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient."
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.
This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging.
According to the TNM supplement, "Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa ("skip metastasis") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis.
CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Is there an established range of values that can be used to code negative, borderline or elevated PSA values? See Discussion.
Previous SEER prostate coding guidelines listed a PSA range that could be used to code negative, borderline, or elevated values in the absence of any statement concerning elevated PSA in the medical record. Is this still in effect for SSF 2, or do we need a definite statement when only a numeric value is given?
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.
This matter is under consideration by the CS Steering Committee. The CS Steering committee is reviewing options for incorporating SEER guidelines into the CS manual.
Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as "well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4"?
For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above.
CS Tumor Size--Bladder: Is tumor size coded to 080 when the bladder mass is described as "greater than 8 cm in diameter"?
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.Based on the information provided above, code CS tumor size 080 [8 cm]. Code the information that is avaliable. Since size of tumor is not used to stage bladder cancer, an approximation is adequate.
Other Therapy: Can herbal therapy be coded when used as a single therapy or when used in combination with conventional therapy as a complimentary treatment? See Discussion.
Page 201 of the SPCM 2004, item #5, states "Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy or given in combination with conventional therapy." This statement itself is ok but there is no guideline on the use of complementary therapy when it is given as the only treatment. The SPCM, 3rd editon, page 140 states: "Use code '6' for alternative and complementary therapies ONLY IF the patient receives no other type of treatment." There is no such statement in the SPCM 2004.
Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy (alternative medicine is the only treatment) or given in combination with conventional therapy (complementary medicine plus conventional).
An official website of the United States government
Home