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: 04/26/2025 00:38 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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.

 2002
20021152 Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?

Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.

Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).

 2002
20021094 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: If the patient received chemo, should "bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy" be coded as involved lymph nodes in the EOD lymph node involvement field for a testicular primary treated with an orchiectomy that rendered a path diagnosis of "seminoma confined to the testicle"? See discussion. Per an orchiectomy path diagnosis a seminoma was confined to the testicle. The only other workup, other than a scrotal ultrasound, was a staging CT scan that revealed bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy in abdomen and pelvis, as well as mediastinal adenopathy. There was also a peripheral pulmonary nodule. No final clinical diagnosis or stage was provided in the chart. Following the orchiectomy the patient was treated with chemo. Should we also have coded distant site lung involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown] because "adenopathy" is not used to code lymph node involvement. The physician varied from the usual treatment for a localized testicular carcinoma, which is an orchiectomy. The physician proceeded immediately to chemotherapy as further treatment. It is not clear whether the decision to treat with chemo was based on the nodes and/or lung being involved.

Search the record for the physician's opinion regarding distant metastasis. Do not code distant involvement based on a peripheral pulmonary nodule seen on CT without further proof. If no further information is available, code the EOD-Extension field to 99.

 2002
20021060 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: The EOD Manual instructs us not to code the size of a cyst. Can we code the size of tumor lesions described as being multicystic, multiloculated, or as a complex mass with cystic areas? See discussion.

Example 1: Large multicystic ovarian mass lesion measuring 10 cm. Sections through the specimen show a multicystic and solid mass with abundant fluid exuding from the cut surfaces (Size of the solid portions is not stated).

Example 2: A brain MRI: 9-cm. complex mass with cystic areas.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes, if the cystic mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field based on the size of the mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description. For the examples in the discussion section, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to: 1) 100 [10 cm]. 2) 090 [9 cm].

As a point of interest, the size of tumor for ovarian and brain primaries is not used in either analysis or as a prognostic indicator for survival. Therefore, spending time separating the cystic and solid portions of the tumor is unnecessary.

 2002
20021088

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: SEER Program Code Manual rule #3 on page 11 states "If a new cancer of the same histology is diagnosed in the same site after two months, consider this new cancer a separate primary unless stated to be recurrent or metastatic. Should vulva and vagina be exceptions to rule #3, as are prostate and bladder?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

No. There is no exception for vulva or vagina.

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.

 2002
20021130

EOD-Extension--Breast: If a negative bone scan is followed by a bone marrow biopsy that is positive for metastatic disease, is the bony involvement used when coding extension [85] or as progression of disease (ignore mets when coding extension)? See discussion.

Pt diagnosed with ductal carcinoma of the breast in May. On June 1, oncologist recommended chemo and XRT and planned a metastatic workup. A June 6 marrow MR consistent with mets. June 8 bone scan showed scoliosis of the L-spine with scattered focal areas of increased activity probably related to degenerative changes in the spine. On June 29, biopsies were done of the T2 vertebra with path diagnosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma consistent with breast primary. Chemo started July 15.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, is EOD extension code 85 correct? We felt that the bone mets was found within 4 months of diagnosis and is not progression of disease.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [metastasis]. Bone metastasis was documented during the original metastatic workup. Metastasis to the bone was suspected soon after diagnosis and confirmed prior to the start of treatment. The length of time between the diagnosis and the confirmation of the bone metastasis was not used to code extension on this case. The pt was still being worked up as evidenced by the fact that treatment had not yet started.

 2002
20021179 Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.

 2002
20020030 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.

 2002
20021070 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase "axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node" or the phrase "satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue"? See discussion. A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled "axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node". The microscopic description for that specimen stated "Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor". The final path dx stated "Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added "If lymph node mets, this is a stage II." Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases. 2002
20021066 Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion. Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?

Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.

For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].

The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.

 2002