Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.
11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.
2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm
11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma
3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells
4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma
Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case.
CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?
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 code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.
CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for a 1.5 cm clinically palpable tumor that appeared to be a cyst with a papilloma when the partial mastectomy Path Micro stated the lesion was an "intraductal papilloma with focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma"? See Discussion.
Should the size be coded to 999 [unknown] because the noninvasive papillary carcinoma is described only as "focal" and is not measured and it is not known how much of the tumor is benign and how much is in situ. Or would the size be coded to the size of the palpable mass, 1.5 cm?
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 CS tumor size as 999 [unknown]. Size of the focal noninvasive papillary carcinoma is not stated.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.
Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."
Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".
Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.
Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.
Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.
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 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.
Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma?
In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004.
Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?
Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.
Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.
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