Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a neurofibroma actually arise in peripheral nerve roots like a schwannoma even if it is referred to as a "C6-T1 intradural spinal cord tumor" and is therefore not reportable?
Schwannomas and neurofibromas of the peripheral nerves are not reportable. Schwannomas of the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.
CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Prostate: Because prostatectomy results are excluded from the CS Extension field for prostate, is code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] accurate to reflect bilateral lobe involvement of prostate cancer when it is incidentally found following a radical cystectomy for a bladder primary? Why must tumor size be 000 when the CS Extension code is 95?
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 prostate CS Extension to 99 [Extension unknown] and code CS Tumor Size according to the information available from the surgery.
CS Extension code 95 [No evidence of primary tumor] should be used only in that rare situation when the only evidence of disease is distant mets or lymph node involvement, no primary tumor found. That is why CS tumor Size must be 000 when CS Extension code 95 is used.
Cell indicator--Lymphoma: If the primary site for a lymphoma is stated to be the lymph nodes but there is no biopsy of a lymph node, can the immunophenotype designation for a lymphoma be coded based on a bone marrow or liver biopsy indicating "diffuse large B-cell lymphoma"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
The cell indicator or immunophenotype designation for lymphomas may be coded from pathology reports on tissue from bone marrow or liver when there is no tissue from the primary site. Code information on cell type from any available source.
See the Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual, Coding Guidelines for Lymphomas, pages C-1055 to C-1056 for more information about coding this field for lymphomas.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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--Breast: Is the term "erosion" the same as "ulceration"?
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.
"Erosion" is not synonymous with "ulceration" when coding CS extension for breast.
CS Eval/Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: When the only procedure performed is a polypectomy, if there is NO tumor at the margins, should CS TS/EXT-Eval be coded as 3 and the surgery coded as a polypectomy?
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 eval code 3. A polypectomy with no tumor at the margin meets the criteria for pathologic staging.
Code polypectomy in Surgery of Primary site in this case.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion.
MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities.
Reporting Source: If the only patient record available for a physician office biopsy is the pathology report identified from a freestanding laboratory, is reporting source coded to 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)] or 4 [Physicians office/Private Medical Practitioner (LMD)]? See Discussion.
A case was identified through a pathology report from a freestanding lab. The doctor who submitted the specimen left the state. His records cannot be located. Because the patient had the specimen removed at a physician's office, not at a path lab, is Type of Reporting Source field coded to the physicians office?
Reporting Source is the source that provided the best information used to abstract the case.
For this case, assign code 3 [Laboratory Only (hospital-affiliated or independent)]. Reporting source should reflect the lab where this case was identified. The MD office added nothing to the case, not even a confirmation of malignancy.
Type of Multiple Tumors--Lung: Is this field coded to 40 [Multiple invasive] or 80 [Unk in situ or invasive] when only one nodule is biopsied of multiple existing nodules for a reported single lung primary? See Discussion.
The right lung has 4 tumor nodules in the upper lobe. Biopsy of one tumor is positive for moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No other work up performed.
Should code 40 be used because we dont know the behavior of the other nodules?
The best code to use in this case is 40 [multiple invasive]. For lung only, it is assumed that all of the tumors are the same histology and that all are invasive.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries: When the pathology report from a FNA or other biopsy states an "in situ" carcinoma and the patient waits more than 60 days for a more definitive procedure which documents an "invasive" carcinoma, is this reported as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a single tumor with ductal and tubular features in only the invasive component and not in the in situ component? See Discussion.
A breast tumor diagnosed in Feb. 2007 is a single tumor with in situ and invasive components. The invasive component is diagnosed as ductal with tubular features.
The only rule that applies is H9 which says 'code the invasive histology.' Is it ductal (8500) or tubular (8211)? If you continue through the H rules, then H12 does not apply, because tubular is not a type of ductal. So then you end up at H17, which would make this 8523. Which code is correct?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8523 [duct mixed with other types of carcinoma].
After determining that the invasive histology is to be coded using rule H9, there is another decision to make in this case -- which invasive histology should be coded? Make a second pass through the histology rules, begining with rule H10. Stop at H17 and code 8523.
An official website of the United States government
Home