Report Produced: 02/04/2023 16:41 PM
|Report||Question ID||Question||Discussion (Ascending)||Answer|
|20110005||Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the pre-2010 histology coded for a "follicular grade 2, non-Hodgkin lymphoma with marginal zone B-cell differentiation"? See Discussion.||This patient was seen in 2010 for the same primary as diagnosed in 2006. The histology was coded to marginal zone lymphoma [9699/3] in 2006. Is this correct? Or should this have been coded as a follicular lymphoma, ignoring the modifying expression "marginal zone B-cell differentiation"?||
This is a 2006 diagnosis. The histology code is 9691/3 [follicular lymphoma, grade 2]. Do not code differentiation for hematopoietic cases.
For diagnoses 2010 and forward, a small number of cases of follicular lymphoma do have marginal zone differentiation. However, there is no code for this variant of follicular lymphoma. It would simply be coded as a follicular lymphoma because that is the most accurate histology code available. The marginal zone differentiation is not to be coded as a second primary (marginal zone lymphoma).
|20071054||Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion.||Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?||
Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.
The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.
|20091030||MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion.||Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?||
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.
For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.
|20071097||Multiplicity Counter--Thyroid: How is multiplicity counter to be coded for a thyroid cancer presenting as multiple foci? See Discussion.||Thyroidectomy showed papillary thyroid carcinoma. Path diagnosis: tumor focality: multifocal. Path described 3 foci of tumor on each side. The main tumor mass in right thyroid was 1.5 cm. Smaller foci of tumor ranged in size from .1 cm to 1.0 cm. Per guidelines, "we still don't count foci as tumors for the purpose of these rules, even if there is more than one." The 1 cm tumor was probably macroscopic in size. Do we count it in the multiplicity counter? Do we count only the 1.5 cm main tumor mass?||
If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If foci are measured, include them in the multiplicity counter. If the only information available is "multiple foci" assign code 99.
For the case above, code 06 in the multiplicity counter (3 tumors on each side).
|20130198||MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Rectosigmoid: How many primaries are accessioned for a synchronous diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma and a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma when both arise in the rectosigmoid junction? See Discussion.||Total colectomy showed neuroendocrine carcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction, as well as a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma of the rectosigmoid junction. Is this a single primary per Rule M13 (a frank adenocarcinoma and an adenocarcinoma in a polyp) or Rule M16 (adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma)? Or are these two primaries?||
Accession two primaries per Rule M17, neuroendocrine carcinoma [8246/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199], and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199]. There are two tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that differ at the third number.
Rule M13 does not apply to neuroendocrine carcinoma. Rule M16 does not apply to this case because there are two specific histologies.
|20041063||Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Mediastinum: How do we code these fields for a case described as a "neuroendocrine carcinoma" of the "anterior mediastinum" without failing the SEER "impossible" site/histology combination edit? See Discussion.||Two different facilities state that the patient has "neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum." This coded combination failed SEER edit (SEERIF38). We can not correct it because that edit flag does not appear on our system. Both facilities indicate that the mediastinum is the primary. In addition, there is text to support both the histology and primary site codes.||
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
The combination of C381 [anterior mediastinum] and 8246 [neuroendocrine carcinoma] will be removed from the list of "impossible" site/histology combinations. There are rare cases of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum. As illustrated in the discussion, verify that the primary site is anterior mediastinum, the histology is neuroendocrine ca, and document those findings in the text.
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.
|20021026||Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should Mohs surgery be code to 27 [Excisional biopsy] or 31 [Shave biopsy followed by a gross excision of the lesion]? See discussion.||Under surgery coding in the 5/22/01 SEER Abstractor/Coder Workshop book, page 20, it states that Mohs surgery should be coded as an excisional biopsy. The ACoS I&R dated 6/6/2001 states that it should be coded to 31.||For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 34 [Mohs surgery, NOS], 35 [Mohs with 1-cm margin or less] or 36 [Mohs with more than 1-cm margin].|
|20091045||CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion.||We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?||
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 tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].
This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.
|20010099||EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.||We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?||
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
|20020051||CS Extension (Clinical)/SSF 3 (Pathologic Extension)--Prostate: Upon prostatectomy, the case was determined to be localized. There is no clinical assessment of the tumor prior to prostatectomy. Should clinical extension be coded to 99 [Unknown]? Please see discussion below. See discussion.||We have a prostate case that is clinically inapparent. There is no staging info at all, no biopsy done. Then the patient has a prostatectomy with a single 0.4cm focus of Adenoca gr 3+3.||
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.Yes, code CS Extension (clinical) as 99 [unknown]. The extension based on the prostatectomy is coded in Site Specific Factor 3 - Pathologic Extension.