Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a case of astrogliosis meet the criteria for gliomatosis cerebri? See Discussion.
Case clinically stated to be a glioma of the brain. Pathology from resection states astrogliosis.
Anderson's Pathology defines astrogliosis as astrocytic proliferations. Gliomatosis cerebri is defined as diffuse neoplastic transformation of poorly differentiated astrocytes over a wide area; predominantly invovles hemispheric white matter.
The pathologic diagnosis for this case, astrogliosis, is not reportable to SEER. Take the definitive diagnosis for this case from the pathology report from the resection. The pathology report takes precendence over the clinical diagnosis.
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.
Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.
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/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Lung: How are these fields coded when a chest CT for lung cancer documents multiple masses in different lobes of the lung? See Discussion.
Example
Chest CT: "Almost complete consolidation of RUL and superior segment of RLL, highly suspicious for malignancy and represents primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise. Multiple pulmonary masses bilaterally consistent with metastatic disease."
The physician describes multiple masses throughout RLL and LLL of lung suspicious for met disease, particularly lesion in LLL measuring 2.5 cm. The 2 cm mass in right lung abuts pleura, another mass in RLL measures 2.5 cm, smaller nodules in RLL and another 1 cm lesion abuts the pleura. Bx of a rt supraclavicular LN is positive for met carcinoma c/w lung primary.
Would primary site be coded to RLL because the scan states that the lesions on the right side represent primary bronchogenic carcinoma until proven otherwise and the 2.5 cm lesion in the RLL is the location of the largest tumor on the right? Or should site be coded to right lung, NOS and size to unknown because there is no clear statement as to which lesion on the right represents the primary tumor? If the site is lung, NOS, would CS Extension be coded to 65 to describe the multiple nodules in the RLL?
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:
Code primary site C349 [Lung]. Code laterality 1 [Right]. Code CS Tumor Size 999 [Unknown]. Code CS Extension 65 [Separate tumor nodules, same lobe]. Code CS Mets at Dx 39 [Separate tumor nodule in contralateral lung].
Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion.
Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative.
Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time?
For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable.
The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What codes are used to represent "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma" and "papillary serous carcinoma with focal clear cell features" of the ovary?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8323 [Mixed cell adenocarcinoma] to "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma." This is histology coding rule 3 in the 2004 SEER manual under single tumor (page 86). There is no other code for this mixture.
Example 1: 8323
Example 2: 8461 (clear cell is not coded according to Rule 6, page 87, because it is not the majority of the tumor).
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.
CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion.
In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones.
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.
First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage.
If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated].
An official website of the United States government
Home