Jim Hofferkamp

Jim Hofferkamp

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 56 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: CFD Edits #4501
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    I had what was essentially the same question come in from several central registries…

    For our submission we need to Use the “Coodinated” Configuration?? And the NAACCR CFD v16 meta file. Want to do both NPCR & NAACCR Submission.

    My response is below…

    Probably the easiest thing to do is pull one file with all of the data items requested by both NAACCR and NPCR. Run that file through the Coordinated edit set. Once the file is clean, run that through NAACCRprep. You can then opt to create a submission file for both NAACCR and for NPCR. If everything worked correctly with NAACCRprep, you shouldn’t have to run any additional edits. If you want to double check, you can run the CINA edits on the NAACCR submission file and the NPCR edits on the NPCR file.

    This year NAACCRPrep has the ability to populate your NHIA and NAPIIA data items as well. If you have already run the algorithm to populate these fields, there is no need to do it again.

    If you do want NAACCRprep to calculate the fields, you will have to include the patient names in the file you run through NAACCRprep. You could just select file type C when you pull your initial file. The names and any other confidential data not requested by NAACCR or NPCR will not be included in the submission file that is created by NAACCRprep.

    in reply to: v16c Metafile release #4500
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    It looks like we changed the agency code from “other” to “NPCR”. I’ll add that to the changes spreadsheet.
    Thanks Nancy!

    in reply to: CFD Edits #4499
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    There will not be an update to the CFD metafile due to the v16c update. None of the updates to the v16 full metafile impact the edits in the cfd metafile.

    in reply to: v16c Metafile release #4495
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    v16c has been posted. still working on the detail report. it will be posted next week.

    in reply to: v16c Metafile release #4494
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    I received a two more edits that need some work today so the metafile won’t get released until tomorrow at best.

    Sorry for the delay.

    in reply to: TNM Path N, SSF3, 4, 5 Breast (CoC) #4493
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    I talked to Jennifer Ruhl at SEER about this. Below are her comments. We are going to adjust the edit accordingly.

    With CS, the instructions were more clear. Code 987 was for when CS Lymph nodes were not coded to 000, in other words, you did not have a cN0 or pN0; however, it could also apply to cNX and pNX. Who knows how this was being used in CS.

    It’s obvious that the codes need to be better defined. I know that NAACCR is putting a SSF Structure group (which I volunteered to be on), that is looking at developing the recommended SSF’s (for implementation in 2018) and also revising the existing SSF’s.

    Since the instructions are not very clear at this time, I think code 000 and 987 should be allowed for a cN0 and pNX. Code 000 does state that clinical nodes are negative and not examined pathologically. As I stated above, code 987 could apply to pN1 and above or pNX.

    I also agree with Jenna that there should be one edit. Could you just go ahead and allow both values for SSF4 and SSF5 for now for everyone? Once we get the instructions updated and better defined, then we can redo the edit. That would probably be for 2018. Tiffany does comment that this could result in a discrepancy in how a registry is coding; however, I don’t think this is going to be a large number of cases.

    This issue can go to the new NAACCR group, although the first meeting (or 2 or 3) may be just discussing how to move forward and not really discussing details.

    My recommendation: This is based on the fact that this SSF can only be assigned based on pathologic examination, although the pathologic assessment might not meet the criteria for pathologic N.

    Code 000

    Regional lymph nodes negative on routine hematoxylin and eosin (H and E), no immunohistochemistry (IHC)
    OR unknown if tested for isolated tumor cells (ITCs) by IHC studies
    Nodes clinically negative (cN0 or cNX), not examined pathologically (pNX)

    Code 987

    Not applicable: Regional lymph nodes assessed pathologically and not assigned pN0.

    in reply to: TNM Path N, SSF3, 4, 5 Breast (CoC) #4490
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    Kathleen,
    I think we found the problem. The logic should allow SSF’s 4 and 5 to be 000 when cN is cN0 and pN is pNX.

    I believe the fix is pretty straight forward, i’m just hoping we can get it done and tested without causing too much of a delay in the release of v16c.

    I’m surprised and concerned that this didn’t show up earlier in testing. I don’t think it would be that uncommon to have a patient with a cN0 and pNX and SSF’s 4 and 5 of 000. The problem is we just don’t have enough 2016 cases to test. I’m just happy it did show up before we released v16c!

    in reply to: IHS Edits #4485
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    Below is a response from Susan Capron and I (mostly Susan). I didn’t include the full email thread but we found that registries were looking for the IHS edit set in the Call for Data Metafile.

    The IHS Edits are included in the NAACCR v16b metafile. They are not included in the call for data edits metafile.

    The IHS edit set (IHS – Variables Required for IHS Linkage) has never been included in the NPCR or NAACCR Call for Data metafiles. It’s not an edit set that can run on incidence records since it includes edits on first, last, and middle names, and on social security number. I do believe it has worked out well having it in the full NAACCR metafile. However, I can see how that might be confusing at times.

    in reply to: Primary Site, Heme Morph, DateDX, Override (SEER) #4484
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    It looks like the edit was updated just after last year’s call for data. Last year’s call for data was based on the v15 metafile. This edit was updated for v15a. I found the following in the admin notes for the edit.

    NAACCR v15A
    – Logic fixed so that it will no longer inappropriately pass for 9719: it will now fail whenever Primary Site is not C050-C059, C110-C119, C300-C301, C310-C319

    So it looks like the edit is working correctly. Those two cases should be reviewed to confirm that the site/histology is correct.

    The original question was submitted by a Canadian registry testing the CFD edits. A second Canadian registry also found some additional cases that were not picked up last year. I did not hear back from any US registries testing the metafile, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with a few cases that were not identified when they ran their file through the CFD edits last year.

    in reply to: Specifications #4482
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    Does the forum send notifications when things are posted?

    in reply to: CFD Edits #4479
    Jim Hofferkamp
    Keymaster

    The edits Recinda is referring to are:
    Census Tract 2010, State, County, 2010-2019 (NPCR)
    Census Tract 2000, State, County, 2000-2009 (NPCR)

Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 56 (of 56 total)

Copyright © 2018 NAACCR, Inc. All Rights Reserved | naaccr-swoosh-only See NAACCR Partners and Sponsors