SEER Inquiry System - Search

As a general rule, the surgeon is usually in a better position to determine the site of origin compared to the pathologist. The surgeon sees the tumor in its anatomic location, while the pathologist is often using information given to him/her by the surgeon and looking at a specimen removed from the anatomic landmarks. However, when a pathologist is looking at an entire organ, such as the pancreas, he/she may be able to pinpoint the site of origin within that organ.

In the case of pancreas body vs. neck, the neck is a thin section of the pancreas located between the head and the body. It may be a matter of opinion whether a tumor is located in the "body" vs. the "neck." In the situation you describe, we would give preference to the surgeon and assign the code for body of pancreas, C251.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous carcinoma.

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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The best code is 8381/3 [Endometroid adenofibroma, malignant]. According to our pathologist consultant: "Serous 'fibroadenoma' is not exactly standard terminology. I would guess the pathologist is looking at an adenofibroma with more fibro and less adeno and thus has changed the terminology around. The combination of the benign serous and malignant edometrioid is also a bit unusual. Each of the proposed codes is defendable, but I prefer endometrioid adenofibroma, 8381/3, because it puts the tumor in the adenofibroma category (less common) yet still identifies the malignant element (endometrioid), even though it does lose the serous. But anyone wanting to look at malignant adenofibromas would find the case, and we would carry it under the appropriate malignant component."

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 2007 or later:

No. When the invasive component is discovered as part of the work-up phase leading to treatment decisions, the case should not be abstracted as a multiple primary. In the rare instance when a patient has not been treated and is still having diagnostic work-up greater than 60 days after the malignancy is diagnosed, do not count the invasive diagnosis as a new primary.

For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.

Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8201/3 [cribriform carcinoma]. The word "type" is a term that indicates majority of the tumor. The term "cribriform" would be a term used to determine the histology code.

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.

The 2016 diagnosis is the same primary. MP/H Rule M10 for breast cancer applies. Do not change the original histology code. Use text fields to document the later histologic type -- duct and lobular.

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

Code the histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].

Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of multiple myeloma on the pathology report.

The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable and reportable stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

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.