An official website of the United States government
Government Funding Lapse
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.
Behavior--Breast: How is behavior coded when a biopsy shows in situ carcinoma with a focus suspicious for invasion and a subsequent excision/resection shows only in situ carcinoma?
Code this case as in situ. The specimen from the excision/resection is the more reliable source for determining behavior, compared to a biopsy, especially in this case where the behavior is ambiguous on the biopsy.
Reportability/Histology--Stomach: According to the AJCC manual, histology codes 8240 and 8249 are excluded from site code C160. Does that mean that I cannot use either of these histology codes with C160 even if the pathologist's diagnosis is neuroendocrine carcinoma?
Please understand that AJCC sets the standards for TNM Staging and the Cancer PathCHART (CPC) initiative sets standards for the validity of site and morphology combinations. The statement in the AJCC manual “8240 and 8249 are excluded for topography code C160” means that these two histologies are not staged using the AJCC Staging System. As with numerous other reportable entities that are not staged by AJCC, the case is reportable and a Summary Stage should be assigned. Combinations of C160 with 8240 or 8249 are valid site/histology combinations for registry reporting and should not be discouraged from use if they correspond to the pathologist’s diagnosis. This goes for any other similar note in the AJCC manual. All CPC standards are enforced via the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) N7040 and Histologic Type ICDO3, Primary Site, Date of Diagnosis (NAACCR) N4911 data quality edits. Registrars can also look up the validity of site and morphology combinations using the CPC*Search tool: https://seer.cancer.gov/cancerpathchart/search/tool/.
It is important to remember the following.
ALWAYS code the tumor histology stated by the pathologist/physician
NEVER change the tumor histology to assign TNM
Not all tumors or histologies can be staged per TNM
Cases that cannot be assigned TNM are assigned a summary stage
Priorities/CS Tumor Size--Breast: What is the priority order used in coding tumor size for this site when there is a larger 2 cm lesion noted on the PET scan and smaller sizes described in the pathology report as two malignant masses one measuring 0.8 cm and the second measuring 1.0 cm per the GROSS?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code CS Tumor Size as 1.0 cm. The pathology report is the highest priority source for coding tumor size. When multiple tumors are present, code the size of the largest tumor.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a physician diagnosis of "appears to be a myeloproliferative disorder" reportable if the patient has no treatment and the physician elects to follow the patient with CBC's?.
Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].
The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).
Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.
Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable.
PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list.
Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma/Leukemia: How many primaries and what histologies are coded when a path diagnosis for a cervical/neck mass demonstrates classical Hodgkin's lymphoma on a background of chronic lymphocytic leukemia?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Hodgkin disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are separate primaries according to our current instructions. Abstract and code them separately.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.
Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead?
Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations.
MP/H Rules--Urinary: How many primaries are abstracted when a patient has a May 2000 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, a November 2004 invasive papillary transitional cell carcinoma of the right ureter and a May 2007 urothelial carcinoma in situ of both the left and right ureters?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.
Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.
Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.
An official website of the United States government
Home
