Primary Site--Esophagus: What is the difference between C15.5 [Lower third of esophagus] and C15.2 [Abdominal esophagus]?
These descriptions represent the use of two different ways the esophagus can be divided anatomically. The two different systems used are illustrated in the SEER Self Instruction Manual for Tumor Registrars: Book 4. Assign the primary site code that describes the location of the tumor in the same way the tumor's location is described in the medical record.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Is "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion.
Should "subcarinal extension" with no mention of lymph nodes be assumed to be direct contiguous extension of the primary tumor or does it represent lymph node involvement?
If it is direct extension, should we code it as 70 in the extension field? If not, should we code it as 2 in the lymph node involvement field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 70 [mediastinum, direct extension].
Extension/Ambiguous terminology: How should the terms "entrapped by tumor" and "encased by tumor" be interpreted when coding these fields?
Each case must be reviewed in its entirety to determine the appropriate coding of these fields. However, in general the terms "entrapped" and "encased" should NOT be interpreted as involvement unless there is other clinical or pathologic evidence to support involvement.
EOD-Extension/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Kidney/Eye: What codes are used to represent these fields for simultaneous bilateral Wilms tumor or simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 7 [Distant] for both types of tumor. Each kidney and each eye are staged separately in the AJCC, 6th ed., but for SEER we would abstract these diagnoses as one case and code the EOD and stage fields to distant to reflect the involvement of both eyes or both kidneys.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp"? See discussion.
Is "adenocarcinoma arising in a papillary adenomatous polyp" equivalent to adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] or adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp [8210/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8261/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma]. In describing colon polyps, papillary and villous are equivalent terms.
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.
Diagnostic Confirmation: Is it appropriate to code this field to "radiography" confirmation when a CT scan does not actually contain a diagnosis of malignancy, however, the discharge diagnosis in the medical record of "probable malignancy" is likely based on the abnormal CT findings? See discussion.
10/1/02 CT of Chest: 1) Huge (left) suprahilar mass. 2) Moderate volume loss, left lung. Appearance suspicious of LLL collapse. An infiltrate is seen in the aerated upper lobe as well as pleural effusion. 3) Streaky and nodular changes are noted at the right base that may represent possible lymphangetic spread of tumor.
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 7 [Radiography]. This is appropriate because it was the scan evidence that was used to make the clinical diagnosis.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: What code is used to represent histology when the surgeon describes a sessile polyp and the final path diagnosis is stated as: "Rectal sessile polyp: Invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma" (pathologist does not state that it is "arising in a sessile polyp")?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8210/3 [adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp]. The structure in which this adenocarcinoma is arising, is a polyp.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.
Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.
For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)
Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.
If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.
An official website of the United States government
Home