Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
Surgery of Primary Site--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field when a patient has a history of a previous organ removal and has additional surgery/organ removal for a present cancer (e.g., History of a 1984 hysterectomy and in 2003 has ovarian primary treated with BSO)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 52 [Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy WITH hysterectomy].
CS Extension--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension for prostate primaries diagnosed at autopsy? See discussion.
A patient was not diagnosed prior to autopsy. The autopsy diagnosis states that this is adenocarcinoma of the prostate without capsular invasion.
Should clinical extension be coded to clinically inapparent, NOS (10) and pathologic extension be coded to no prostatectomy done within first course of treatment (97)?
Code CS Extension (clinical) to 99 [Unknown]. Code SSF 3 according to the amount of tumor found using the information from the autopsy.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Lung: How do you code this field for a lung primary that presents with metastasis to the bone and brain in which the oncologist's treatment plan includes only radiation and chemotherapy?
Code the Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery field to 1 [Cancer-Directed Surgery Not Recommended].
Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: Can grade IV be implied for brain primaries with the histology of glioblastoma multiforme, even if there is no statement of grade in the path report? See discussion.
Dr. Platz has instructed the Iowa registry to code glioblastoma multiforme to grade IV, even when there is no corroborating statement of grade in the path report. This is also supported in some references.
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the absence of a stated grade on the pathology report. If a grade is stated, code the stated grade. SEER does not recommend adopting the rule in the Discussion.
EOD-Extension/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Kidney/Eye: What codes are used to represent these fields for simultaneous bilateral Wilms tumor or simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 7 [Distant] for both types of tumor. Each kidney and each eye are staged separately in the AJCC, 6th ed., but for SEER we would abstract these diagnoses as one case and code the EOD and stage fields to distant to reflect the involvement of both eyes or both kidneys.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/TNM--Breast: Do we code these lymph nodes fields for a breast primary that describes ipsilateral axillary lymph node involvement as "extending through the lymph node capsule and into perinodal soft tissue/fat" as "fixed/matted"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary regional lymph nodes, NOS], if the size of the metastasis within the lymph node is not known. "Extension into perinodal soft tissue" does not imply that the lymph nodes are fixed to one another or to other structures. AJCC stage for lymph nodes is coded to N1 [Metastasis to moveable ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes].
In order to code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 5 [Fixed/matted ipsilateral axillary nodes] which is the equivalent to AJCC equivalent N2, there must be some clinical or pathologic statement of fixation or matting. There can be extension through the capsule without fixation or matting. "Fixation" is a clinical term and "matting" can be either clinical or pathologic. A pathologist can recognize two or more lymph nodes stuck together by tumor.
Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.
Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.
According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.
Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.
The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.
Priority Order for Coding Subsites
Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:
1 Pathology report
2 Operative report
3 Physical examination
4 Mammogram, ultrasound
If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.
An official website of the United States government
Home