Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20000487 | Primary Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: Would the following Kaposi primaries be examples of cases not coded to skin for primary site? See discussion. | 1. KS developed initially as a lesion in the oral cavity and followed by the appearance of skin lesions.
2. KS found in a resected parotid gland with metastasis to the parotid gland lymph node. No skin lesions identified.
3. KS discovered in a biopsied 3 cm axillary lymph node. Clinically, the patient had hepatosplenomegaly, ascites, and extensive mesenteric lymph nodes. (No mention of skin.) |
Code the Primary Site field as follows:
1. C44.9 [Skin, NOS] as the default value when lesions develop simultaneously in skin and non-skin areas. 2. C07.9 [Parotid gland] 3. C44.9 [Skin, NOS] as the default value when there is no mention of lesions in the skin or other primary site.
Edward Klatt states in Practical AIDS Pathology, "...Visceral Kaposi (involving one or more internal organ sites) is also present in three-fourths of cases, but may not be diagnosed prior to autopsy. Visceral involvement frequently includes the lung, lymph nodes and gastro-intestinal tract." |
2000 |
|
|
20000553 | 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. |
2000 | |
|
|
20000513 | Multiple Primaries/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: What code is used to represent the histology and how many primaries should be coded for a TURB specimen that demonstrates carcinoma in situ, Grade I to II papillary transitional cell carcinoma, and high grade transitional cell carcinoma? See discussion. | Pathology report: A. Biopsy, bladder neck, @ 6:00: Carcinoma in situ B. Biopsy, Bladder wall, lateral, left: 1. Papillary carcinoma (Grade I-II) 2. Loose fragments of high-grade transitional carcinoma C. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 5:00: Carcinoma in situ D. Biopsy, Bladder neck @ 7:00: Cystitis Glandularis E. Biospsy, Bladder wall, posterior: Papillary carcinoma (Grade I) |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code this case as one primary and code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8130/34 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, high grade].
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. |
2000 |
|
|
20000547 | Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "non-small cell carcinoma, NOS"? See discussion. | Should a non-small cell carcinoma histology be assumed to be a large cell carcinoma [8031/3] or should the histology be coded to carcinoma, NOS [8010/3]? | For tumor diagnosed 2001-2006: Code the Histology field to 8046/3 [non-small 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20000248 | Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate? | If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.
If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.
If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case. |
2000 | |
|
|
20000429 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion. | Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.
For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002? |
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)
Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.
If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999. |
2000 |
|
|
20000269 | 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20000539 | CS Extension--Prostate: How do you code clinical extension for prostate primaries diagnosed at autopsy? See discussion. | A patient was not diagnosed prior to autopsy. The autopsy diagnosis states that this is adenocarcinoma of the prostate without capsular invasion. Should clinical extension be coded to clinically inapparent, NOS (10) and pathologic extension be coded to no prostatectomy done within first course of treatment (97)? |
Code CS Extension (clinical) to 99 [Unknown]. Code SSF 3 according to the amount of tumor found using the information from the autopsy. | 2000 |
|
|
20000277 | 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. |
2000 |
|
|
20000421 | 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. | 2000 |
An official website of the United States government
