EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned "thickening" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical "thickening" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/Radiation Sequence with Surgery/Date Therapy Initiated: Is the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field used to code date of first therapy and radiation sequence with surgery? See discussion.
Example: There is no primary site surgery and only an aspirate of a lymph node and the date of therapy is based on this procedure.
Yes, the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field is used to code the Date Therapy Initiated field and the Radiation Sequence with Surgery field.
Primary Site: How do we code site when endometrioid carcinoma arises in "endometriosis"?
Code the Primary Site to where the endometriosis implanted, which may or may not be the endometrium. Endometrioid carcinoma can arise in the ovary, endometrium and other internal genital sites. The site/histology edit for endometrioid and ovary has been removed from the SEER edit set.
Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion.
Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex.
SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When noninvasive papillary transitional carcinoma of the bladder and invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, and staged by the pathologist as two primaries, should they reported as two primaries? If reportable as a single primary what site code should be used?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. This is one primary. Mucosal spread of noninvasive cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary. The prostatic urethra is seldom a primary site. The cancer usually starts in the bladder and spreads to the prostatic urethra via the mucosa. In this case the cancer in the prostatic urethra became invasive. Code primary site as bladder, NOS [C67.9].
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD Extension using the invasive information (prostatic urethra).
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: How should an antibiotic regimen such as bismuth or omeprazole, amoxicillin, and metronidazole be coded for a MALT lymphoma of the stomach associated with Helicobacter pylori infection? See discussion.
If we do not count the antibiotic regimen as cancer-directed treatment but this is the only treatment given and the lymphoma disappears, is it problematic to have a cancer status of "no disease" recorded in a patient that supposedly was not "treated"?
Do not code antibiotic regimens as Cancer-Directed Therapy. These drugs are intended to treat the bacteria and not the cancer. This type of treatment is ancillary even if it is the only type of treatment given. You may designate a user-defined field to capture this information if desired. The coding combination of a cancer status of "no disease" and all treatment fields coded to "no treatment" is allowable.
Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion.
How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.
2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned.
Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?
For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.
Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When two breast tumors with two different histologies, such as duct and mucinous are diagnosed in the same breast at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
Our rule is that multiple lesions of different histologic types are separate primaries. However, for separate tumors of duct and lobular, we report as a single primary. Since we now have a combination code for duct and other types of ca, do we report as a single primary or continue to report as separate primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
When there are two breast tumors, one mucinous, the other duct carcinoma, report as two primaries when the pathologist's opinion clearly states that there are separate primaries.
If there is no such information from the pathologist, the two tumors must be separate with clear (negative) margins to be reported as two primaries. Otherwise, report as one primary.
The ICD-O-3 combination codes are not intended to combine tumors of different histologic types.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home