CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.
Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.
Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?
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 CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.
Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.
EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.
Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion.
A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?
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 is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.
If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion.
The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: What is the correct histology code for a neuroendocrine neoplasm described as a carcinoid and also referred to as oncocytic? See Discussion.
Left mainstem bronchus mass excised: metaplastic endobronchial mucosa with submucosa containing an infiltrating poorly diff malignant tumor. Origin of tumor is not identified in overlying mucosa. IHC stains will be performed.
Addendum #1. IHC stains show well diff neuroendocrine neoplasm, favor carcinoid. Recommend sending this to expert in lung neoplastic pathologist.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code as 8246 [Neuroendocrine carcinoma, NOS]. According to our pathologist consultant, the neuroendocrine description is more specific than the oncocytic description in this case.
MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion.
A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.
The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).
Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.
Reason no surgery of primary site/First course treatment: If the Reason no Surgery of Primary Site field is coded as 7 (refused), must the other treatment options (radiation, chemo, hormone) also be coded as 7? See Discussion.
Coding instruction #5 in the SEER manual states: "Assign code 7 (refused) if the patient refused recommended surgery or made a blanket statement that he/she refused all treatment."
Refused [code 7] means this modality was specifically recommended by the physician and the patient refused. If two treatment alternatives were offered and surgery was refused, code Reason no surgery of primary site 1 [Surgery of the primary site was not performed because it was not part of the planned first-course treatment].
Refusal of surgery does not necessarily mean that all treatment was refused. Coding Surgery of Primary Site as "refused" does not affect the coding of Radiation, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, etc.
Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology to be coded for a pituicytoma WHO grade I, of the pituitary?
Assign code 9380/1 [glioma, borderline].
According to our pathologist consultant, the term pituicytoma is restricted to low-grade glial neoplasms of the neurohypophysis or infundibulum. The best category currently available for these is glioma.
Radiation Therapy--Breast: If hospital records indicate that a mammocyte intracavitary radiation therapy device was placed in the breast, but there is no follow-up documentation of radiation actually being given, should we code radiation 2 (implants) or 8 (recommended, unknown if given)?
Assign code 8 [recommended, unknown if administered]. Check this case periodically, and others coded 8. Update if further information becomes available.
CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Ovary: How are renal lymph nodes coded for ovary primaries?
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 involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx. Renal lymph nodes are not listed as regional lymph nodes for ovary; therefore, code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx.
An official website of the United States government
Home