Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20210061 | First course treatment/Update to current manual: Should the instruction regarding expectant management in the 2021 (and 2022) SEER Manual include how to code for the patient’s decision to proceed with expectant management? See Discussion. |
Currently, First Course Therapy instruction for expectant management (also referred to as active surveillance, watchful waiting, etc.) instructs one to code 0 or 00 (not done) for all data items when the physician opts for expectant management. We find that the treatment decisions can be driven by the patient, physician, or combination of both patient and physician depending on the options presented. |
Instructions for First Course of Therapy include using the documented first course of therapy (treatment plan) from the medical record. While a patient may weigh in on the treatment decision, the physician is responsible for developing and managing the treatment plan including closely watching a patient’s condition but not giving treatment unless symptoms appear or change. We can add language to a future manual to clarify. |
2021 |
|
|
20081054 | First course treatment: Is subsequent treatment with R-ICE first course or second course therapy if the patient underwent ABVD x2 cycles and subsequent imaging showed no response to treatment and evidence of progression [new adenopathy] for a lymphoma case? See Discussion. |
Patient was initially diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Nodular Sclerosing on 3/3/06. Patient received ABVD x 2 cycles. Had disease reassessed in May, 2006, no response to treatment, showed evidence of progression (new adenopathy). Patient's pathology from 3/06 was sent for consult: Diagnosis was Hodgkin with some overlapping features of B-cell Non Hodgkin Lymphoma. Treated 5/18/06 with R-ICE FOR NHL. |
The R-ICE treatment in this case is not part of the first course. Documentation of treatment failure and/or disease progression signifies the end of the first course of treatment. |
2008 |
|
|
20140066 | First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor? |
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants. |
2014 | |
|
|
20160079 | First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Is metronomic chemotherapy coded as chemotherapy? |
Code metronomic chemotherapy as chemotherapy. Metronomic chemotherapy, also referred to as low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy, is an emerging cancer treatment approach which administers relatively low doses of traditional chemotherapy drugs over a long period of time and without ‘breaks’ in treatment. By using lower doses this method of treatment minimizes the side effects of traditional chemotherapy. |
2016 | |
|
|
20031088 | First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Hematopoietic, NOS: How do you code treatment for a myelodysplastic syndrome when a patient is admitted to receive a "second transfusion 7 months after diagnosis"? |
The first course of treatment for these hematopoietic primaries lasts until there is a treatment change. For the case you cite the second transfusion (7 months after diagnosis) would be first course treatment. Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field to 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy]. |
2003 | |
|
|
20010033 | Grade, Differentiation--Breast: 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. |
2001 | |
|
|
20020059 | Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding? |
This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/
Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.
FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.
For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated." |
2002 | |
|
|
20170033 | Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion. |
Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report). WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise. |
See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors. Since this diagnosis includes "Well differentiated" and "Grade 2," assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "intermediate" fits best with grade 2. |
2017 |
|
|
20150022 | Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion. |
Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014. |
Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade. |
2015 |
|
|
20150062 | Grade--Bladder: How is Grade coded for the following cases diagnosed 1/1/2014 and later? See Discussion.
1) Low grade urothelial carcinoma, invasive carcinoma not identified (8120/2)
2) Papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, no evidence of invasion (8130/2) |
The rules for coding Bladder Grade appear to have changed over time. SPCM 2013 Appendix C instructions state that Grade should be coded to 9 for urothelial carcinoma in situ (8120/2) and to 1 or 3 for non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2).
When the grade instructions were removed from Appendix C in 2014, these site specific instructions for in situ bladder cases were no longer included. Thus the two grade system, found in SPCSM 2014+ Grade/Differentiation Coding Instructions for Solid Tumors, is being used to code grade for both the in situ and invasive urothelial malignancies stated to be "low grade" (code 2) or "high grade" (code 4). See also, SINQ 20150022. Please clarify the current grade instructions for in situ and invasive urothelial carcinomas of the bladder. |
Follow the instructions in the 2014+ Grade Coding Instructions to code grade for cases diagnosed 2014 and later, http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/ Instruction #4.a. states to code grade for in situ tumors when grade is specified. This instruction applies to bladder cases, as well as other in situ tumors.
1. Assign grade code 2
2. Assign grade code 4
See the note below the table in instruction #7. |
2015 |
An official website of the United States government
