| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20051074 | CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion. | Example Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition. Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45? |
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.The description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case. When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a "tumor nodule," rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field. |
2005 |
|
|
20051013 | Reportability/In Situ--Prostate: Was there a time period when PIN III was reportable to SEER? | Per the 2004 SEER Manual, page 2, Reportable Diagnoses, Exceptions, 1.b.iii "Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) of the prostate (C619). (Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 and later.)" | 2005 | |
|
|
20051002 | CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: How are these fields coded for a tumor stated to have only in situ disease in the breast with bone metastasis identified on scan? See Discussion. | 4/20/04 Quadrantectomy: "Tumor involves a significant portion of the biopsy and is estimated at 10 cm in greatest dimension." The only other mention of size is from imaging studies which is 3.5 cm. The histology is "high grade ductal carcinoma with comedo necrosis. No invasive carcinoma identified." Bone scan on 4/20/04 shows "widespread metastatic disease to bone." By rule the behavior code for this case is changed to malignant. | 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 tumor size as 100 [10 cm]. Size from pathology or operative report is preferred over size from imaging.
Code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and proportions of in situ and invasive not known.]
There is invasive tumor present (as proven by the bone metastasis), but the size and proportion of the invasive component is unknown.
Please note: Extension must be coded at least to 10 [Confined to the breast tissue and fat including nipple and areola; Localized, NOS] in this case. Do not assign extension code 00 [in situ]. |
2005 |
|
|
20051145 | CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion. |
Path final diagnosis states: "No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section." Path micro states: "Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient." |
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. This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging. According to the TNM supplement, "Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa ("skip metastasis") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis. |
2005 |
|
|
20051127 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" of the spine reportable? See Discussion. | Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor. Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS? |
For cases diagnosed 2011 and later: A spinal "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.
See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup, http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability |
2005 |
|
|
20051017 | CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Is it better to code to 26 [Stated as N1, NOS] or 28 [Stated as N2, NOS] instead of 60 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS; Lymph nodes, NOS] when the only information in the medical record is the TNM N1 or N2 physician 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. Yes. When the only indication of lymph node involvement is the physician's N category from TNM, code the numerically lowest equivalent CS Lymph Nodes code for that N category. In the breast schema, CS Lymph Nodes code 26 corresponds to N1, NOS and code 28 corresponds to N2, NOS. |
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 | |
|
|
20051079 | Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable? |
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable. The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051030 | 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. |
2005 | |
|
|
20051111 | Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out? | Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/ SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.
The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx: alemtuzumab/Campath bexarotene/Targretin bevacizumab/Avastin bortezomib/Velcade pegaspargase/Oncaspar rituximab/Rituxan trastuzumab/Herceptin asparaginase The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx: epratuzumab/LymphoCide ibrituzumab tiuxetan/Zevalin tositumomab/Bexxar Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy. There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy. |
2005 |
Home
