EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.
The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.
If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.
Primary Site: What site code is used to classify a femur biopsy with pathologic diagnosis of "Ewing sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET)"? See discussion.
ICD-O-3 lists PNET as being site specific to C71._. The pathology report states "some authors consider both Ewing sarcoma and PNET to be the same histologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 and 23."
Code the Primary Site field to C40.2 [femur] based on Rule H in the ICD-O-3 that states, "Use the topography code provided when a topographic site is not listed in the diagnosis. This topography code should be disregarded if the tumor is known to arise at another site."
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-Extension--Cervix: Should this field be coded to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] or 12 [microinvasion] when there is only a statement of "microinvasion" but no measurements describing the level of involvement given?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [microinvasion] when there are no depth of invasion measurements given.
Code the EOD-Extension field to 11 [minimal microscopic stromal invasion] when there is a statement of "minimal STROMAL invasion."
EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: What code is used to represent this field when the only information is a description of:
1. "hilar mass"
2. "mediastinal mass"
3. "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm" used to describe any of the lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD Lymph Nodes field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code EOD-Lymph Nodes fields as follows for the examples given:
1) 9 [Unknown; not stated] for a "hilar mass"
2) 2 [Mediastinal] for a "mediastinal mass"
3) 2 [Mediastinal] for "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm," if used to describe any of the named lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: What code is used to represent the histology and grade for "WHO-II astrocytoma, grade II" of the brain when the WHO-II classification is different from the classification systems previously used? See discussion.
According to the WHO-I classification system, this is a moderately anaplastic astrocytoma. According to the Duke criteria, this is an astrocytoma. By Dauma-Dupont criteria, this is a grade 2 astrocytoma.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 9401/34 [anaplastic astrocytoma].
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.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Melanoma: How do you code tumor size for a melanoma diagnosed by a positive lymph node biopsy when the primary site is coded C44.9 because no primary site was identified? See discussion.
Should the size be 000 because no primary was found or 999 for unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 000 [No mass; no tumor found] when primary site is coded to C449.
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.
Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.
An official website of the United States government
Home