Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals "well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.
For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Would a lymphoma involving mesenteric and retroperitoneal nodes (both site code C77.2) be coded to extension 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I], based on the fact that while more than one "chain" is involved only one "region" is involved?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of diaphram]. The AJCC lists mesenteric as a core nodal region, but does not list retroperitoneal lymph nodes as a part of this region, so retroperitoneal is a separate region.
The EOD staging scheme for lymphoma uses lymph node REGIONS as the criteria for assigning the extension code. Use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual as the definitive source for classifying lymph node regions, not the ICD-O-3. If it is a separate LN region per the AJCC, it is coded in the EOD as a separate region.
According to the AJCC curator, the nodal regions are defined in Kaplan's book on Hodgkin disease. Bilateral cervical, or axillary, or hilar, or pelvic, or inguinal nodes count as two regions. Mediastinal and para-aortic lymph nodes count as one region regardless of laterality as they are centrally located. A large mediastinal mass constitutes one region involved regardless of the size.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion.
Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.
EOD-Extension--Bladder: Both papillary transitional cell ca in situ and sessile (flat) transitional cell ca in situ are diagnosed simultaneously in the bladder. We code the higher histology (8130/2). For extension, do we use the code that corresponds to the histology (01), or to the higher extension code (06)?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 06 [sessile (flat) (solid) carcinoma in situ], the higher extension code.
Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"?
Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used.
Reason no treatment/Surgery of Primary Site: Does the "Reason for No Cancer-Directed Therapy" field only relate to the "Surgery of Primary Site" field? If so, for what diagnosis years is that effective? Have SEER's coding guidelines changed over time? See discussion.
Whenever a surgical procedure is performed that results in a non 0 or 9 code in any one of the Surgery fields, should the Reason for No Site-Specific Surgery field be coded to 0 [Cancer-directed surgery performed]?
For cases diagnosed 2003 and forward: The field "Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site" applies only to surgery of primary site. This is a change from the pre-2003 instructions.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term "plasma cell dyscrasia" a synonym for multiple myeloma?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-3.
For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
An official website of the United States government
Home