SEER Inquiry System - Search

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code primary site C209 [rectum] and histology 8094/3 [basosquamous carcinoma]. As of 6/9/2003, this is no longer an impossible site/histology combination.

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.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2010

The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.

A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].

For cases diagnosed in 2003, code to:

Primary Site: C76.2 [abdomen, NOS]

Histology: 8380/3 [Endometrioid adenocarcinoma]

EOD size, extension, lymph node: 999, 99, 9 [Unknown]

Surgery of Primary Site: 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, WITH or WITHOUT surgical treatment]

Scope of Regional LN Surgery: 0 [None]

Surgical Procedure of Other Site: 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites].

Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.

Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.

Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as a single primary, acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3].

MDS diagnosed prior to 1/1/2001 is not a reportable disease process. However, because MDS is currently a reportable disease process, it must be considered when trying to determine whether the AML represents a separate primary.

• If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent different (separate) disease processes, only one primary is reported (i.e., AML) because the 1999 diagnosed MDS is not reportable.

• If the Heme DB indicates MDS and AML represent the same disease process, then no primaries are reported because MDS was not reportable in 1999.

Rule M2 does not apply to this case because more than one histology is mentioned in the scenario. According to the Heme DB, MDS can transform to AML. Rules M8-M13 apply to cases involving transformation. In this case, Rule M10 applies because the patient was diagnosed with a chronic neoplasm (myelodysplastic syndrome) followed greater than 21 days later by an acute neoplasm (AML).

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [Unknown], based on the information provided.

The physician's statement of an N category from a TNM may be used to determine lymph node involvement in the absence of other information. However, you cannot assume nodal involvement based on the incomplete staging information of "Stage IV" for a base of tongue primary. For this primary site, extension into the hypopharynx from this primary is equivalent to T4/Stage IV. Therefore you cannot assume the clinician's assessment of the case as Stage IV represents his assessment of lymph node involvement.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule M2, this is a single primary because there is a single histology. Code histology to 9823/3 [CLL/SLL]/

The distinction of CLL vs. SLL cannot be made on bone marrow biopsy in isolation. The pathologist cannot make a diagnosis of CLL vs SLL without having peripheral blood counts available for review. If the patient was treated for CLL in the past, that may alter the peripheral counts seen in 2010 (e.g., lymphocytosis). The distinguishing feature is peripheral lymphocytosis in CLL (not seen in SLL). The disease looks the same and both will often have bone marrow involvement and lymph node involvement. If the patient had true CLL in 2005, then any subsequent lymph node (or other) biopsy consistent with CLL/SLL remains consistent with the original diagnosis of CLL. I would not change the original CLL code.

I agree with the previous response. We have to assume the 2005 diagnosis included a peripheral blood supporting that diagnosis. Otherwise, CLL and SLL look the same in nodes and marrow. The interplay between the two "diseases" is expected. This is why they are considered a single disease.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

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.

No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.