Report Produced: 03/24/2023 21:24 PM
|Report||Question ID||Question (Descending)||Discussion||Answer|
|20071088||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.|
|20071100||Type of Multiple Tumors--Colon: How is this field coded for a case in which the patient is found to have two in situ polyps and an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp all in the same segment of the colon? See Discussion.||Code 30 would not count the fact that these are polyps. Code 31 states "AND a frank adenocarcinoma." What would be the correct code?||Assign code 30 [In situ and invasive] in this case. Code 31 does not apply here because frank adenocarcinoma is not present.|
|20021074||Tumor Markers--Breast: If the ERA/PRA results reported differ for separate breast specimens removed for a single primary, do we code the results as positive or negative?||
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code both the Tumor Marker 1 and Tumor Marker 2 fields to 1 [positive] when a single primary breast tumor has both positive and negative ERA/PRA receptors.
|20061038||Treatment, NOS: Is Bromocriptine coded to hormone or "other" treatment for a pituitary primary that is not surgically treated?||Yes, code bromocriptine as hormone treatment for pituitary adenoma, as it suppresses the production of prolactin that causes the adenoma to grow.|
|20130091||Treatment, NOS--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Which guidelines are used to code treatment for hematopoietic diseases diagnosed prior to 2010?||
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later, use the Hematopoietic & Lymphoid Neoplasm Manual for instructions on coding aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field "Other Treatment."
For cases diagnosed 5/1/2002 12/31/2009, use the instructions in the SEER Manual and the instructions in "Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases" to code aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field "Other Treatment."
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 04/30/2002 use the instructions in the SEER Manual for collection of aspirin, blood thinners/anti-clotting medications, and transfusions in the field "Other Treatment."
Prior to 1/1/2001, these treatment modalities were not collected.
|20000491||Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?||
Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).
Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.
|20010043||Terminology/Terms of involvement: When the terms "lytic" or "lysis" are used in an imaging study, are they to be interpreted as synonymous with metastasis, or can these terms be used to describe a non-malignant condition?||Although the term "lytic lesion" is often used to describe bone lesions and "tumor lysis" develops in response to systemic therapy, the words are not a part of the SEER list of terms used to describe involvement. Do not code distant metastasis based only on these words.|
|20020060||Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion.||Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?||
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].
|20010006||Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.||
PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
|20031170||Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description.||
Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?
Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.
In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather
progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.
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.