System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 07/06/2024 12:18 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051113 Histology (Pre-2007): What is the difference between code 8244/3 composite carcinoid (combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma) and 8245/3 adenocarcinoid tumor?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8244/3 [composite carcinoid] when there is a combination of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor.

Assign code 8245/3 [adenocarcinoid] when the diagnosis is exactly "adenocarcinoid."

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.

 2005
20051112 Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion. On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology.

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.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.

The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines.

 2005
20051111 Chemotherapy/Immunotherapy: Which drugs changed categories when SEER*Rx came out?

Please refer to http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/seerrx/

SEER*Rx is effective for cases diagnosed 1-1-2005 and forward. It replaces all previous references. It is neither required nor recommended that cases treated prior to 2005 be recoded.

The following drugs in the 5/17/02 Book 8 update changed from immunotherapy to cytostatic chemotherapy in SEER*Rx:

alemtuzumab/Campath

bexarotene/Targretin

bevacizumab/Avastin

bortezomib/Velcade

pegaspargase/Oncaspar

rituximab/Rituxan

trastuzumab/Herceptin

asparaginase

The following drugs may have been coded as monoclonal antibodies but are radioisotopes in SEER*Rx:

epratuzumab/LymphoCide

ibrituzumab

tiuxetan/Zevalin

tositumomab/Bexxar

Any other monoclonal antibodies either remained as monoclonal antibodies or it was a local decision to code them as immunotherapy.

There were no drugs that changed from chemotherapy to immunotherapy.

 2005
20051110 Other Therapy: Can herbal therapy be coded when used as a single therapy or when used in combination with conventional therapy as a complimentary treatment? See Discussion. Page 201 of the SPCM 2004, item #5, states "Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy or given in combination with conventional therapy." This statement itself is ok but there is no guideline on the use of complementary therapy when it is given as the only treatment. The SPCM, 3rd editon, page 140 states: "Use code '6' for alternative and complementary therapies ONLY IF the patient receives no other type of treatment." There is no such statement in the SPCM 2004. Assign code 6 for unconventional methods whether they are single therapy (alternative medicine is the only treatment) or given in combination with conventional therapy (complementary medicine plus conventional). 2005
20051109 CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast 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.

Yes, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.

 2005
20051108 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Which types of neurofibromatosis are reportable to SEER? See Discussion. Clin exam: probable neurofibromatosis, type I. On the trunk alone are >14 cafe au lait spots all at least 10mm. Both axillary regions have freckling. No palpable fibromas, spine is straight, no organomegaly. MRI of head: no abnormality. Neurofibromatosis type I (von Recklinghausen's disease, the Elephant Man disease) is primarily tumors of the subcutaneous tissues. By itself, NF1 is not reportable. NF2 is much more likely to develop acoustic neuromas. This syndrome is reportable only when acoustic neuroma(s) is present, because the acoustic neuroma is what is reportable. This case is not reportable because none of the symptoms affect the central nervous system. 2005
20051107 Chemotherapy/Radiation Therapy--Lymphoma: How is treatment coded when Rituxan is given in combination with the monoclonal antibody Zevalin conjugated to 90-Yttrium or the monoclonal antibody Bexxar conjugated to 131-Iodine in the treatment of NHL?

Code Rituxan as chemotherapy. Code 90-Yttrium as radioisotope. Code 131-Iodine as radioisotope when given with Rituxan as treatment for lymphoma.

Zevalin is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Yttrium 90. Bexxar is a monoclonal antibody conjugated to Iodine 131. In both drugs, the monoclonal antibody is only the delivery agent for the radioisotope. Both drugs should be coded as radioisotopes. The one-two-three punch of Rituxan and zevalin followed by Rituxan and Bexxar should be coded as chemotherapy plus radioisotopes. Zevalin is also used by itself for people who have not responded to Rituxan.

 2005
20051103 CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion.

For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?

Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present.

Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression.

Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression.

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.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above.

According to our pathologist consultant:

Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma.

The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.

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.

 2005
20051102 CS Extension--Breast: What is the CS Extent for this 2004 breast cancer? See Discussion. A patient had lobular carcinoma of the left breast in 2000. At that time, she had bilateral simple mastectomies and the right breast was benign. In 2004, she notices a nodule in the right chest wall, which is excised and found to be invasive ductal ca and lobular ca in situ. So is this Sequence 2, C50.9, 8522/3. And what is the CS Extent - 40 chest wall? (The physician stages this as T2N0M0)

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.Residual breast tissue is present following a mastectomy. If the nodule is in the breast tissue (tissue above the ribs), assign CS extension code 10 [Confined to breast tissue...Localized, NOS]. If the nodule is in the chest wall (tissue below the ribs), assign code 40 [Invasion of chest wall].

 2005
20051101 CS Extension--Cervix: How are "positive pelvic washings" coded for a cervical primary?

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.

According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri.

 2005