Histology--Lymphoma: How is "histiomonocytic lymphoma" coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9755 [Histiocytic sarcoma; True histiocytic lymphoma]. "Histiomonocytic" is not standard terminology, according to our expert consultant. However, 9755 is the best code to assign.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Sarcoma: How is "acral myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The ICD-O-3 histology code is 8811/3 [Fibromyxosarcoma] according to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. WHO defines myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) as "a unique low grade sarcoma with myxoid stroma, inflammatory infiltrate and virocyte-like cells that predominantly involves the hands and feet."
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.
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 Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Explain the difference among SSF4 prostate codes 150 [No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown], 510 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension], and 550 [Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & prostatectomy apex extension unknown].
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.Site Specific Factor 4 captures the status of clinical apex involvement and prostatectomy apex involvement. The first digit in codes 110-550 indicates the clinical status of apex involvement. The second digit indicates apex involvement found at prostatectomy. The third digit is always zero. For both first and second digits, the codes and definitions are the same:
1 - No involvement of prostatic apex
2 - Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex, NOS
3 - Arising into prostatic apex
4 - Extension into prostatic apex
5 - Apex extension unknown
Code 150 = No clinical involvement of prostatic apex & prostatectomy apex extension unknown
Code 510 = Clinical involvement of prostatic apex unknown & No prostatectomy apex extension
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which category has priority when both apply, "Regional lymph nodes, NOS" or "Stated as N_, NOS"? See Discussion.
Example: When there is a clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis for a breast primary on a physical exam "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement", as well as a clinical N1 designation, do we code as 60 [Axillary LNS, NOS] or 26 [Stated as N1, 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.For the example provided, assign code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s)...] for "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement." Code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS] is the least specific and would not be used in this case because axillary nodes are defined in code 25. Code 26 is for cases in which "N1, NOS" documented by the physician is the only information 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.
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.
CS Eval--Ovary: How is CS Mets Eval coded when the patient has positive pleural effusion confirmed by cytology?
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 Mets Eval for the example above 3 [path exam of metastatic tissue] assuming there has been no pre-treatment. Positive cytology is required for confirmation of pleural effusion for an ovarian primary.
Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion.
CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging?
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.
There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home