Back to Search Results

Report Produced: 01/29/2023 00:36 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion (Ascending) Answer
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

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."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

20031073 EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description. The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement.
20000533 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 considered 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.

20041026 CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion. The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.

If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.

Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.

20091016 CS Extension--Pancreas: How do you code this field for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of portal and splenic veins? See Discussion. The splenic artery/vein is only mentioned in the body and tail scheme; no mention is made of this site in the pancreatic head scheme.

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 CS extension code 54 [major blood vessels]. The portal vein is listed under code 54 for head of pancreas. The splenic vein branches from the portal vein.

20130027 Reportability--Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix now reportable? See Discussion. The terminology for carcinoid tumors has changed. The current terminology used is "neuroendocrine tumor." Are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix considered non-reportable because carcinoid, NOS of the appendix has a borderline behavior code [8240/1]? When the histology/behavior codes for the term "well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor" became 8240/3, did SEER intend this change to also apply to appendix primaries? If so, for which diagnosis year did this change go into effect?

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix are reportable because these tumors have a morphology code 8240/3 per the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System. However, per the ICD-O-3, carcinoid tumors of the appendix have a behavior code of /1 [borderline].

The terminology of neuroendocrine tumors is evolving and current thinking at the international level is that carcinoid/WD NET of appendix is reportable. However, reportability in the United States is based on ICD-O-3. The histology code for "Carcinoid of appendix" is 8240/1; the histology code for a carcinoids of all other primary sites is 8240/3. Until the United States adopts the proposed changes for ICD-O-3, reportability of appendix cases is as follows:

  • Carcinoid

  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor

  • Grade 1 neuroendocrine tumor
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor/carcinoid (Pathologist uses both terms in reporting the diagnosis and does not want to choose one diagnosis over the other.)
  • 20081074 Primary site/Histology: Does SEER accept the site/type combination of lymph nodes (C77.0-C77.9) with the histology of either 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) or 9827 (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)? See Discussion. There is a discrepancy between the SEER Site/Type table and the CS histology codes under Lymph Nodes.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not "impossible" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.

    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.

    20091104 MP/H Rules/Histology--Esophagus: How is histology coded for a biopsy of the esophagus with a pathologic diagnosis of "adenocarcinoma, intestinal type" when there is no evidence of a gastric tumor in scans or EDG? See Discussion. There is a rule for colon to disregard "intestinal type" and code to adenocarcinoma (8140) but no rule for esophagus. How should histology for this esophageal case be coded?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Follow MP/H Other Sites Rule H11 and code 8144/3 [Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type]. Adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, is called that because it resembles the normal pattern of adenocarcinoma seen in the large intestines. It is not an indication of the location of the adenocarcinoma. We find that it is not uncommon in the sinuses, stomach, lungs, cervix, and many other organs.

    20091090 First course treatment--Leukemia: How should an allogeneic stem cell transplant for acute myeloid leukemia be coded in the Hematologic Transplant and Endocrine Procedures field? See Discussion. There is debate as to whether this procedure should be coded as a 12 in order to capture the allogeneic part of the procedure. Assign code 20 [Stem cell harvest (stem cell transplant) and infusion as first course therapy] for stem cell procedures, even allogeneic procedures.
    20010128 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.

    This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

    This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

    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.