Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).
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.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: In the absence of physician staging, is an "enlarged" spleen seen on CT coded as involvement of the spleen for lymphoma cases?
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.
Do not code spleen involvement when the only evidence is an enlarged spleen.
When imaging is the only diagnostic tool (no biopsy or splenectomy), spleen involvement is based on the presence of nodules and not on enlargement. Splenic enlargement alone (by physical exam or imaging) is insufficient to support involvement of spleen.
Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?
The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.
"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If an oral mucosa, right hard palate biopsy contains a composite lymphoma [low-grade follicular + chronic lymphocytic leukemia], how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is one primary. Assign code 9590 [Malignant lymphoma, NOS]. This is a composite lymphoma. Code to lymphoma when there is any solid tumor (in lymph nodes, tissue, etc.) Code to lymphoma, NOS since this is not purely follicular and there is no code for composite lymphoma.
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)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].
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.
First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: Should the use of proton pump inhibitors be coded as treatment for lymphoma primaries in patients with H Pylori?
No, do not code proton pump inhibitors as treatment. These are used for gastric acid suppression. Proton pump inhibitors are used to treat symptoms, not the lymphoma itself.
CS Lymph Nodes--Esophagus: Is a resected positive "periesophageal nodule" coded as an involved lymph node for an esophagus primary? See Discussion.
Per SINQ 20000846: Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node. SINQ 2000846 applied to EOD. Can this concept be used for Collaborative 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.
For cases diagnosed on or after January 1, 2004:
Search for additional information on the "nodule." Review the gross and microscopic descriptions to determine whether or not the nodule is a lymph node. If it is not possible to obtain further information, apply the downstaging rule and select the Extension or LN code that results in the lower category.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: If bilateral tonsils are involved with lymphoma, is it one or two regions of involvement and how is extension coded?
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 cases diagnosed 1-1-08 and later: Assign CS extension code 10 [involvement of a single lymph node region]. Bilateral tonsils are one organ/site.
See Note 1 under CS Extension. Tonsil is coded the same as a lymph node region.
CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion.
Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes."
1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60?
2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process?
3. What would constitute "absence of other information"?
4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users?
5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate?
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 CS Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have "regular" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described.
1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes.
2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3.
3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50.
4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries.
5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary.
Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?
Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.
An official website of the United States government
Home