SEER Inquiry System - Search

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code CMML for this case. Code the histology at initial diagnosis. This patient had rapid progression, but the initial diagnosis was "more compatible with CMML/MPD."

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.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2013:

No, code multiplicity counter to 02 [two tumors present]. According to the multiple primary rules, these two lung tumors are reported as a single primary. Record the number of tumors reported as a single primary in Multiplicity Counter.

Multiplicity Counter no longer required by SEER as of 1/1/2013.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that "other parts of the pathology report" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.

Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.

The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.

The instructions are:

If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as

apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

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 the primary site to the location where the GIST originated. If the primary site cannot be determined, assign code C809 [Unknown primary site].

GIST of gastrointestinal hollow viscera cannot be staged in TNM.

In Collaborative Staging, use the stomach scheme for GIST of the stomach. Use the small intestine scheme for GIST of the small intestine. For GIST of other primary sites, use the CS scheme for the specific site.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/04-12/31/06, code histology to 8524 [Lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. Assuming there is no mention of in situ, Histology Coding Rule 3 applies: Use a mixed histology code if one exists

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.

The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.

The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.

The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.

The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.

The case is not reportable.

The biopsy with a suspicious result (suspicious for adenocarcinoma) was disproven by the esophagectomy.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.