EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can tumor size of 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] be used when there is a lung mass seen but the diagnosis is from a positive bronchopulmonary secretion?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor code 002 [Malignant cells present in bronchopulmonary secretions] is used only when there is no visible primary lung tumor and bronchopulmonary secretions are positive for lung malignancy.
Even if the diagnosis was made by cytology of broncho-pulmonary secretions, if there is a visible mass, code the size of the mass if known, code 999 if size is unknown.
EOD-Extension--Stomach: What code is used to represent this field for a stomach primary described as linitis plastica?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 30 [Localized, NOS], unless more information is known about the extent of tumor involvement. Coding the Histology field to 8142/3 [Linitis plastica] and the Size of Primary Tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more: Linitis plastica] identifies this diagnosis.
In the EOD-Extension field, the depth of invasion is the important characteristic to be coded. The 10 digit EOD corresponds to the AJCC Staging Manual in which the "T" is based on level of invasion. While a diagnosis of linitis plastica indicates a worse prognosis, it does not define the extent of infiltration. There is no luminal mass with linitis plastica. Instead, the entire gastric wall is thickened by tumor.
Surgery of Primary Site/Reconstruction-First Course--Breast: If the plan is to "reconstruct" the breast 6 months after an ipsilateral modified radical mastectomy, is the time span a problem or should it be coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field because it was planned?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 55 [Modified radical mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast, Implant]. The time span is not a problem as long as the reconstruction was planned as first course, which is indicated by tissue expander insertion at the time of the original surgery.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: When the pathology report does not specify dimensions for the invasive component, how is tumor size coded? See discussion.
In some cases the tumor has both invasive and in situ components. The pathologist sometimes does not report the size for the invasive portion of the tumor. In most cases, the invasive portion is described as a percentage of the tumor mass.
From January 1, 1998 and forward: Follow the Revised Breast EOD instructions. If the size of the invasive component is not given, record the size of the entire tumor in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. Assign the appropriate EOD-Extension code for the situation.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is an in situ tumor followed by another in situ tumor in the same location a new primary? See discussion.
Example: Six months after an in situ lesion was excised from the buccal mucosa, another in situ lesion was excised from the same area of the buccal mucosa with no mention of it being recurrent.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as a second primary if the second in situ tumor occurred more than 2 months after the first, and it is not referred to as recurrent by the clinician or pathologist. There are no special rules for determining the number of primaries when an in situ lesion follows an in situ.
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.
Primary Site--Breast: What subsite code should be used for a diagnosis of "inflammatory carcinoma"?
Code the Primary Site field to C50.9 [Breast, NOS] for a breast primary presenting with inflammatory cancer unless there is a palpable mass within the breast. If there is a palpable mass, code the primary site to the position of the mass.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. If a physician uses a term not currently on the list or if a physician uses a list in the "maybe" category, should we assume the tumor to be clinically inapparent or clinically apparent tumor?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
If the physician used a term not on the clinically apparent/inapparent list, ignore that term and use the best information available from other sources to code the EOD-Extension field.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the maybe category or the term is not on the list, then code EOD-Extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: Are "atypical melanocytic hyperplasia" and "severe melanotic dysplasia" synonyms for melanoma in situ?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
No. SEER determines its reportable list from the ICD-O-3. The above terms are listed as tumor-like lesions and conditions, but are not in situ or malignant.
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.
Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion.
Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.
We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.
An official website of the United States government
Home