Primary site/Histology: Does SEER accept the site/type combination of lymph nodes (C77.0-C77.9) with the histology of either 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) or 9827 (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)? See Discussion.
There is a discrepancy between the SEER Site/Type table and the CS histology codes under Lymph Nodes.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not "impossible" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.
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.
MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion.
Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma.
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors.
The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules.
Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion.
The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors.
Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable.
Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is hygroma reportable? See Discussion.
Benign brain guidelines indicate that named tumors that have been assigned an ICD-O-3 code are reportable. However, per I&R: "Most cystic hygromas (9173/0) are fetal malformations and occur in patients less than two years old. If this patient was an adult, they are primarily treated with surgery. Hygroma (used in a general sense) is a response to trauma (i.e., subdural hematoma) and as such, is not a "new growth" and would not be reportable either as a cyst or as a neoplasm. Unless the patient had some sort of operation, I'd hesitate to include the case as a reportable benign tumor."
How is the cancer registrar to distinguish between reportable and non-reportable hygromas? Example: Brain MRI showed diffuse cerebral volume loss and incidental bilateral frontal subdural hygromas (histology code 9173/0).
Reference: I&R 14825
Hygromas are not reportable. This instruction will be added to the next revision of the benign brain rules.
According to an expert in the field, hygromas are not neoplastic. Hygromas are cystic dilations of a localized subarachnoid or subdural accumulation of clear fluid related to an excess accumulation of CSF, typically related to an old hemorrhage that somehow prevents reabsorption of CSF.
Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion.
The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown.
Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated.
MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion.
The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.
The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.
MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If an in situ carcinoma diagnosed in 2007 demonstrates comedo necrosis, should the histology be coded to comedocarcinoma in situ? See Discussion.
According to the new MP/H rules, we code descriptive features. There is no coding guidance or reference to "necrosis" within the breast MP/H rules. Based on SEER SINQ 20021002, the "comedo necrosis" would not be coded at all for pre-2007 cases. Does this still hold true for cases diagnosed after January 1, 2007?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, comedo necrosis is not synonymous with comedocarcinoma. If no further information is available for this case, code as carcinoma in situ.
CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion.
CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking.
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.
This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is this a reportable clinical diagnosis?
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1).
An official website of the United States government
Home