Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20061120 | Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Should a TURB be coded to 27 [Excisional biopsy; SEER Note: Code TURB as 27] when there is obvious extravesicular extension demonstrated because the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code an excisional biopsy when there is macroscopic residual disease"? | Assign code 27 [excisional biopsy]. The site-specific instructions have priority over the general instructions. According to the instructions for coding surgery of the bladder, use code 27 for TURB. | 2006 | |
|
|
20061130 | CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. | CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate? | 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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension. The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion. |
2006 |
|
|
20061129 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion. | Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.
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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061086 | Reportability--Melanoma: Is an excisional biopsy of the skin with a diagnosis on the pathology report of "Tumoral melanosis" reportable by itself or must there be a pathologist note, such as "Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma", in order for it to be reportable? See Discussion. |
Skin, left upper back, exc Bx: Tumoral melanosis. Note: Unless proven otherwise, tumoral melanosis should be considered as a regressed melanoma. If reportable, do we report a diagnosis of tumoral melanosis without a similar note? |
Tumoral melanosis (TM) alone is not reportable. It is not listed in ICD-O-3. TM can be associated with a regressed melanoma, but it can also occur with other cutaneous tumors. The case is reportable if there is a diagnosis of melanoma. |
2006 |
|
|
20061112 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: In a patient with Muir Torre syndrome, should each of 12 sebaceous carcinomas diagnosed from 1994-2005 be a new primary or should this process be one primary diagnosed in 1994? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Follow the rules in the 2004 manual for determining multiple primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are in different sites (topography code difference in the first two numeric digits after the C), they are separate primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are more than two months apart, they are separate primaries. 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061097 | Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion. |
Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010: Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis. 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. |
2006 |
|
|
20061078 | Histology (Pre-2007): How is "adenocarcinoma, diffuse type, with signet ring features" coded? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Histology coding Rule 7 is the only rule that applies to this diagnosis. Assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.
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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061098 | CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets? | 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 Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061072 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: How many primaries should be abstracted and should the histology field(s) be coded to 9530/1 [Meningiomatosis, NOS] or 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] to represent a case that presents with MRI confirmed multiple meningiomas (e.g., left dura, right parasagittal region, and left frontal lobe)? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract this case as two primaries, right and left cerebral meninges. Code the histology for both primaries to 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS]. Use code 9530/1 [Meningiomatosis, NOS] only when the diagnosis is stated to be meningiomatosis, or multiple meningiomas.
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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20061059 | Histology--Breast: Does "cancerization" mean invasive for a breast tumor described as "DCIS with lobular cancerization"? | No, cancerization is not a synonym for invasive. Cells of DCIS can extend not only along the duct but also into the terminal lobules. This extension is referred to as lobular cancerization. | 2006 |
An official website of the United States government
