Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20200011 | Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion. |
Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not. In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)? |
Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data. We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update. |
2020 |
|
|
20160029 | Radiation Therapy--Breast: Are iodine 125 (I-125) seed implants for breast cancer coded as brachytherapy or as a localization technique similar to wire localization? See Discussion. |
We are seeing many I-125 seed implants for breast cancer. Many of my associates are coding them as brachytherapy. I think they are the newest of the localization technique like wire localization but with greater accuracy. Most are done the same day as the surgery so brachytherapy does not make sense. Which is correct? |
I-125 seeds could be used for brachytherapy for breast cancer or as a localization technique for nonpalpable breast tumors. If the seeds were in place a short time and removed as part of a breast surgical procedure, they were likely used for tumor localization. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is thought to be more precise than the wire implantation technique for localizing lesions. |
2016 |
|
|
20000527 | Radiation: Is "consolidated" radiation therapy coded as part of first course therapy when there is no documentation of "planned treatment" and the radiation is done 4 months after the initiation of treatment? |
Yes, "consolidation" treatment is part of a planned treatment regimen. A treatment regimen may consist of the four following phases: 1. Induction (remission induction) 2. CNS preventive therapy 3. Consolidation/intensification 4. Maintenance |
2000 | |
|
|
20061029 | Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary. If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary. 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. |
2006 | |
|
|
20051131 | Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary Site--Breast: Is a malignancy that occurs in 2005 in a mastectomy scar years following an original diagnosis of breast cancer in 1971 a recurrence (not reportable) or a new primary (breast or chest wall, NOS)? See Discussion. |
The patient had a right mastectomy for breast carcinoma in 1971. In 2005, she came in with a mass in the right axilla and a right chest wall mass in the mastectomy scar. Excision of the axillary mass and biopsy of the chest wall mass revealed invasive adenocarcinoma with a similar histologic pattern. The axilla specimen contained no benign breast tissue. IHC stains exhibit strongly positive for ER, mildly positive for PR and negative for HER2/neu. The pathologist says "Although these findings are consistent with recurrent breast carcinoma, they are not specific for such. Recurrence after 34 yrs. is most unusual." |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: The 2005 diagnosis is a new primary. The 1971 site differs from the 2005 site and there are more than two months between the two. Without further information, assign topography code C761 [chest wall]. The pattern of spread, including regional extension, is different for a primary of the chest wall compared to a primary in the breast. Coding the primary site to C761 will group this case with similar cases. If further information can be obtained, look for old records that describe the extent of the 1971 mastectomy. It is possible that there was breast tissue left on the chest wall. Residual breast tissue is often present following mastectomy (simple, modified, or even radical). New carcinoma can develop in the remaining breast tissue. 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. |
2005 |
|
|
20200027 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Should either of the terms, strongly characteristic of or most certainly, be used to accession a case as reportable when they are used to describe a malignancy and no other information is available? See Discussion. |
SINQ 20130140 indicates a histologic diagnosis that is characteristic of a specified malignancy is reportable because this is equivalent to the term, diagnostic of. Does the same logic apply to a clinical diagnosis that is strongly characteristic of a malignancy on imaging? SINQ 20180104 indicates the term, almost certainly, is not a reportable ambiguous term. If a radiologist notes a mass was most certainly malignant, is this adequate to accession this as reportable? Is a clinically certain diagnosis equivalent to diagnostic of? Or are the modifiers almost and most irrelevant because the terms certainly and certain are not on the ambiguous terminology list? |
Look for more information. What is the plan for each of these patients? Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, accession both of these cases based on the imaging reports. If more information becomes available later, review and revise as applicable. |
2020 |
|
|
20220005 | Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology: Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion. |
A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.” Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification. |
Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia. "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability. It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis). Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise. As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. |
2022 |
|
|
20180104 | Reportability--Ambiguous terminology: Are the following terms reportable: almost certainly and until proven otherwise? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Physician states patient has an almost certain melanoma. Due to the patient's age, there is no plan to for any treatment or further workup. Almost certain is not listed as a reportable phrase, so typically we would not accession this case. Example 2: Imaging states a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma until proven otherwise. No additional workup is available at this facility. This terminology is also not seen on the ambiguous reportable terminology list but we are seeing it more often and wanted confirmation. |
Use the ambiguous terminology list as a last resort. Consult with the physician and search for further information to assist with the decision. If no further information can be obtained, use the ambiguous terms list to decide; in this case, the terms are not on the list and these examples would not be reportable. |
2018 |
|
|
20210048 | Reportability--Anal Canal: Is a 2021 diagnosis of moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II) of the anal canal reportable? See Discussion. |
We are aware that squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II (e.g., AIN II), 8077/2 is reportable for 2021. However, because this is also called rather than high grade squamous dysplasia (8077/2), we are unsure about reportability. There is no known histology and behavior code for moderate squamous dysplasia, the classifications available are only low grade (8077/0) or high grade (8077/2). |
If possible, clarify with the pathologist/physician what is meant by "moderate squamous dysplasia (AIN II)." If no further information can be obtained, report this case based on the diagnosis of "AIN II." Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable for cases diagnosed in 2021. AIN is a type of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. |
2021 |
|
|
20130184 | Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable? |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022 A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant]. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
