System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 07/30/2025 05:51 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013
20150027

Date of diagnosis--Diagnostic confirmation: How are the diagnosis date and diagnostic confirmation coded when the pathology (needle biopsy followed by resection) reports GIST, NOS and the physician subsequently states this is a malignant GIST and treats the patient for a malignancy? See Discussion.

Pathologists rarely diagnose a GIST as a malignant tumor. Per the AJCC, GISTs encompass a continuum in terms of biologic potential, with larger more mitotically active tumors landing on the "histologically sarcomatous" or malignant end of the spectrum. Because the pathologists generally do not categorize these tumors as benign or malignant, the judgement is typically made by the clinician in light of all the clinical and pathologic findings. Unless there are obvious distant metastases, the clinician usually decides whether a GIST is malignant and treats the patient as such.

In the case above, the patient underwent a gastric biopsy on 04/10/2014 that showed GIST. The subsequent resection on 04/12/2014 showed a 4.5 cm GIST, spindle cell type with 6 mitoses/5 square mm. The resection pathology report does not indicate the GIST is malignant, but does identify a large tumor with mitotic activity. After reviewing the evidence in this case, the clinician calls this a malignant GIST on 04/29/2014 and starts the patient on Gleevec.

Although neither the biopsy nor the resection call this a malignant tumor, should the date the GIST was first diagnosed (biopsy on 04/10/2014) be used to code the diagnosis date, since this is the date the tumor (ultimately felt to be malignant) was diagnosed? If the diagnosis date is coded as the date malignant GIST was first mentioned (04/29/2014), this would exclude surgery as treatment for this tumor.

Would this be a histologic diagnosis because the tumor was histologically confirmed to be GIST? Or must this be a clinical diagnosis because the diagnosis of malignancy was only made clinically (by the clinician's review of the clinical and pathologic findings)?

Code the diagnosis date for this case as 04/10/2014. Code the diagnostic confirmation as histologically confirmed. The clinician is using all of the information available to determine the diagnosis, including the biopsy and resection.

2015
20071054 Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion. Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?

Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.

The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.

 2007
20061046 First Course Treatment--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are Decadron and Zometa coded when used in the treatment of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. The 2004 SEER Program Manual instructions for coding hormone therapy do not provide any specific instructions for coding adrenocorticotrophic agents. Per Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases pg. 3, prednisone and decadron are coded as hormonal therapy (when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen). Does this mean that Decadron without chemo agents is not coded as treatment? In paging through the hematopoietic disease manual, one sees this instruction for other sites as well. Yet, for other diseases (e.g., Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia on page 18), prednisone is coded as hormone therapy (not necessarily as part of chemo regimen).

Code the decadron as hormonal treatment. Do not code the zometa--it is an ancillary agent.

In the August 2006 update of SEER*Rx, a note was added to decadron and other hormonal agents that they can be used to control white cell proliferation in lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

In general, decadron is used more commonly for supportive care and as an antiemetic than as hormone therapy.

 2006
20051036 Date of Diagnosis--Sarcoma: Should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of biopsy or the date of birth for an infant biopsied at 3 days of age and stated to have a diagnosis of congenital alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, widely metastatic?

Code the date of the biopsy as the date of diagnosis. This is the date the cancer was first identified by a medical practitioner.

Note: SEER collects the Month and Year of diagnosis. The "day" of diagnosis is not collected by SEER.

 2005
20051010 Primary Site/Priorities--Breast: When there are conflicting references to subsite in different reports, which report has priority? See Discussion. The clinical site of the palpable mass is outer quadrant. The pathologist states inflammatory breast cancer located in the central breast. Should the site be coded to C501 for central breast, C509 for inflammatory breast ca, or C508 for outer quadrant?

Code the breast subsite from the pathology report (C501, central).

The priority order for coding subsite from conflicting reports is

1. Pathology report

2. Operative report

3. Physical examination

4. Mammogram, ultrasound

The primary site of inflammatory breast carcinoma is coded to C509 when there is no palpable tumor.

 2005
20210020

Behavior--Breast: Should the behavior change to /3, invasive, to get a case to clear edits? The histology of this breast case is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 8500/2. Lymph nodes are positive for micro-mets (0.2 mm-2 mm). SEER Summary Stage: 3, regional lymph nodes positive. This creates an edit for SEER Summary Stage due to the behavior code of /2, in situ.

Code the behavior to /3, not just to pass edits, but because this is an invasive case based on the positive lymph nodes.

For most cases, behavior is based on the primary tumor, but in situations like this where an invasive component cannot be found and there are positive lymph nodes, the /3 behavior is assigned based on the positive lymph nodes.

 2021
20110154

Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3?

Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive].

"Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive.

 2011
20100036 Behavior--Lung: Can an in situ behavior code be used for a bronchioalveolar carcinoma of the lung when the pathologist appears to use the term bronchioalveolar to describe an in situ pattern of growth exhibited by an adenocarcinoma? Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor? See Discussion.

In ICD-O-3, bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma is described only by behavior code 3 (invasive). Would the behavior be coded as in situ for the following cases?

Example 1: Left lower lobe, partial resection shows bronchioloalveolar carcinoma with focal areas of fibrosis (see comment). Comment: Although the possibility that these areas represent stromal invasion can not be excluded, we favor the interpretation that these areas do not represent true invasion. Synoptic summary: Minimal pathologic stage: Local Extent.

Example 2: Lung tumor described as adenocarcinoma, predominantly bronchoalveolar pattern. For most sites, the term pattern is used only for in situ cancer and is not a specific term used for invasive tumors. Is the use of the term "pattern" in this situation indicative of in situ tumor?

Code the behavior indicated in the pathology report. If the pathologist states the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is in situ, apply the ICD-O-3 matrix rule and assign 8250/2. Otherwise, code 8250/3. Do not use the term "pattern" to infer in situ behavior.

Code behavior /3 for both examples based on information provided.

2010
20061032 Behavior--Head & Neck: Should the SEER IF_Morph_3 edit be modified because it does not allow a behavior code 2 with histology 8941 [carcinoma in a pleomorphic adenoma] for a parotid primary?

Code the behavior as 2 and over-ride the edit. The edit is there to flag unusual combinations. Once you have verified that the behavior is coded correctly, over-ride the edit.

The surgeon stage of T2 is based on size of tumor, the TIS is based on behavior. Code according to pathologically confirmed TIS.

 2006