Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD Fields: When a patient has two simultaneously diagnosed primaries, and a regional lymph node dissection intended for one of the primaries removes nodes that are also regional for the other primary, is the information from the lymph node dissection coded for both primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the lymph nodes are negative, the status of nodes that are regional for both sites would be used to code the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery fields for both sites.
If any of the lymph nodes are positive use the histology from the lymph nodes to determine how the EOD and Site-Specific Surgery will be coded. For example: If prostate cancer is an incidental finding when a cystoprostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection are done to treat a bladder cancer, and all of the positive lymph nodes reflect the histology of the prostate primary (adenocarcinoma), code the nodes as positive for the prostate primary and negative for the bladder primary.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, "extending around" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and "encasing" the portahepatis?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms "extending around" nor "encasing" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.
Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.
PE: Prostate firm on DRE
IMP: Rule out prostate cancer
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: What code is used to represent the histology "renal cell carcinoma with granular cell morphology"? Kidney primary with diagnosis of renal cell CA with granular cell morphology. Do we code as granular cell carcinoma? Is the term "morphology" synonymous with "type"? See discussion.
Do we code this type of tumor as a granular cell carcinoma [8580/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8320/3 [granular cell carcinoma]. Renal cell carcinoma is a non-specific term that has several specific cellular subtypes, one of which is granular cell [8320/3].
Note: Do not code to granular cell tumor [9580/3], which is not a histology related to renal cell 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.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Can "Fuhrman nuclear grade" be coded if it is the only grade given for a kidney primary, or is breast the only site for which we can use a nuclear grade in coding the Grade, Differentiation field? See discussion.
Our pathologist consultant disagrees with coding nuclear grade for any site because it is only a component of the grade, in most cases, and is not adequate to use by itself.
If the Fuhrman nuclear grade system can be used by coders, will a conversion table for the system be added to the coding documentation by SEER in the future?
For cases diagnosed 2004 and later: Fuhrman grade can be used to code the Grade, Differentiation field.
Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.
For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.
EOD-Lymph Nodes/EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined--Lung: How do you code these fields for clinically positive lymph nodes when the result of neoadjuvant treatment is that the lymph nodes are pathologically negative? See discussion.
The pt presents with "mediastinal adenopathy" for a lung primary and was treated with pre-operative radiation therapy. After two months, he was treated with surgery. The 10 lymph nodes removed were all negative. How does SEER code these three EOD fields?
Will an error be triggered in SEER Edits if you code lymph nodes as clinically positive in the EOD lymph node involvement field and yet pathologically negative in the number of regional nodes positive and number of regional nodes examined fields?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 2 [Mediastinal, NOS]. Code the EOD-Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 00/10. You will not have a problem with the SEER Edits. The EOD field is coded using clinical and pathologic information. All information gathered within four months of the date of diagnosis (in the absence of disease progression) or through completion of surgery(ies) can be used to code EOD. The clinically positive nodes justify the radiation therapy.
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)].
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Note 8 of the clinical EOD scheme for prostate states, "B1, Small, discrete nodule(s)<1.5 cm, and B2 Nodule(s)>1.5 cm ... " Does Note 8 still apply for cases diagnosed 1998 or later?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Note 8 in the EOD scheme does not apply because nodule size does not apply in the 5th or 6th edition of TNM.
An official website of the United States government
Home