Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20051007 | 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. |
2005 |
|
20051120 | 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. |
2005 |
|
20051100 | 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. |
2005 | |
|
20051033 | CS Site Specific Factor--Melanoma: What is the correct code for measured thickness in SSF 1 for a melanoma of the choroid without an enucleation? See Discussion. | CS Site Specific Factor 1 for melanoma of the choroid codes "Measured Thickness (Depth), Breslow's Measurement." The note for this field states "Record actual measurement in millimeters from the pathology report." For melanoma of the eye, there is often only an eye exam report stating the thickness. Can PE thickness (clinical statement only) be coded for SSF 1 or is this field coded only from pathology? (i.e., all cases treated without enucleation would have this field coded to 999) | 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 SSF 1 999 [Unknown] when there is no enucleation, and therefore, no pathology report for a choroid melanoma. |
2005 |
|
20051061 | CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded when there is no description of a primary lung tumor, lymph node biopsies are negative, but biopsy of a "level 7 mass" is positive for squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. | Example: Chest CT: Enlarging subcarinal mass, 3.4 cm, is most likely malignant adenopathy or perhaps primary tumor. The clinician subsequently described a patient history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. He stated that a PET scan revealed multifocal thoracic disease consistent with stage 3B carcinoma. This was followed by mediastinoscopy with lymph node biopsies (all negative) but the biopsies of "level 7 mass and subcarinal level 7 mass" showed squamous cell carcinoma. | 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.If this case is determined to be a lung primary, code the CS fields: CS Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown] CS Extension: 99 [Primary tumor cannot be assessed] CS Lymph Nodes: 20 [Subcarinal lymph node involvement] based on positive level 7 biopsy, history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and subcarinal "adenopathy" per CT. |
2005 |
|
20051035 | 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. | 2005 |
|
20051083 | Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when there is a marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma [9699/3] diagnosed in 2000, and the clinician states that the diffuse large B-Cell type lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2004 was a transformation of the prior primary? See Discussion. |
The Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates they are most likely "D" different disease processes. As any low grade lymphoma can transform, we suspect this represents a transformation (the clinician is regarding this as transformed). How many primary/ies should be coded? And, how? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Report this case as one primary according to the physician's opinion. Code the histology as 9699/3 [marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma, NOS] and code the date of diagnosis as 2000. Code the physicians opinion regardless of whether or not it agrees with the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table. Use the table when the physician does not state whether or not there is a new primary. 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. |
2005 |
|
20051024 | Primary Site--Corpus uteri: Should a leiomyosarcoma be coded to the site of "uterus" or "myometrium"? | Code the primary site of a uterine leiomyosarcoma to C542 [Myometrium]. | 2005 | |
|
20051042 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Diagnostic Confirmation: Which histology code is preferred if the CBD brushing is positive for malignant cells, cytologically most consistent with ductal adenocarcinoma [8500/3], and the common hepatic artery lymph node biopsy has metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8160 [Cholangiocarcinoma]. Code from the pathology specimen when available. In this case, the only pathology is from the lymph node specimen.
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. |
2005 | |
|
20051103 | 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. |
2005 |