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.
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.
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: What surgery code is used to reflect the amputation of a finger for subungual melanoma?
47 [Wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins greater than 2cm] is the correct surgery code for amputation of a finger for melanoma.
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.
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 Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?
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.
Yes, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.
CS Site Specific Factor 3--Prostate: When a prostatectomy specimen shows tumor focally penetrating through the capsule into periprostatic striated muscle tissue, is the involvement coded to 041 [periprostatic tissue] or 052 [skeletal muscle, NOS]?
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 052 [Levator muscle, Skeletal muscle, NOS, Ureter]. The description for this case states periprostatic "striated" muscle tissue. According to our pathologist consultant, "striated muscle in this context is skeletal muscle and the term is being used to differentiate the muscle from smooth (non-striated) muscle." Smooth muscle involvement would be most likely be coded 050 [Extension to bladder neck...] because smooth muscle in a prostatectomy or TURP specimen is usually from the urinary bladder neck.
Reportability/Behavior--Thymus: Are "lymphocyte predominant thymoma with microscopic capsule invasion" and "Polygonal epithelial cell thymoma with invasion of the lung and pericardial fat" reportable?
Please see SINQ 20110038 for the most recent information on reporting thymoma.
CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion.
For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?
Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present.
Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression.
Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression.
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 prior to 2007:
Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above.
According to our pathologist consultant:
Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma.
The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.
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