Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined: What codes is used to represent these fields when the surgeon states that a "lymph node dissection" was done, but no nodes are identified in the pathology report?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 3 [Number of regional lymph nodes removed unknown or not stated; regional lymph nodes removed, NOS] and code the EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined field to 00 [No nodes examined].
The surgery fields reflect the procedures the physician performed. The EOD fields reflect the results of those procedures.
Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent the histology "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma" and "mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous glandular polyp"? See discussion.
Should histology be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] or 8261/3[adenocarcinoma arising a villous adenoma] or 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a villoglandular adenoma]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule D in the Coding Complex Morphology Diagnoses: "Code the morphology with the highest code."
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.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.
Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?
The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features"? See discussion.
Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should "sarcomatoid" be interpreted as sarcoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in coding histology.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "prostatic duct carcinoma"? See discussion.
Should the histology be coded to duct carcinoma [8500/3] or endometrioid carcinoma [8380/3]? Prostatic duct carcinoma is defined as endometrioid carcinoma; however, sometimes the pathology report describes the histology as being only "prostatic duct carcinoma."
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
If there is no mention of endometrioid carcinoma in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. If "endometrioid carcinoma" is mentioned in either the final diagnosis or in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8380/3 [endometrioid carcinoma].
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.
1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)?
2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)?
1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.
Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because "grade" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9.
Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: For skin primaries diagnosed 1998-2002, what is the difference between code 40 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation, NOS] and 50 [Radical excision of a lesion, NOS]?
Codes 40 and 50 are not in the scheme for 2003 forward. See history for coding cases diagnosed 1998-2002.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus"? See discussion.
Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. "Focus" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.
We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of tumor.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion.
The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4.
Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: For prostate cancer, can an elevated PSA be used to code metastasis? See discussion.
5/31/98 PE: 30 gm prostate with nodularity, suspicious for CA.
Final diagnosis: Stage D Ca of prostate with mets, NOS
PTA IVP: Normal collecting system
5/11/98 CXR: NED
PSA 86.3 Suggestive of prostate Ca per MD
5/13/98 TURP and bilat. orchiectomy: Plan was to perform orchiectomy as treatment of choice if biopsy was positive. Appears MD feels that the patient has mets, NOS based on the elevated PSA.
5/13/98 TURP Adenocarcinoma, PD
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, do not code the EOD-Clinical Extension field based on elevated PSA alone. If a recognized practitioner states that there is metastasis, then metastasis should be coded.
In this case, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because it is Stage D. But if you had D1 or D2 staging based on the involvement of lymph nodes, then that involvement would be coded under EOD lymph nodes and not under the clinical extension field.
An official website of the United States government
Home