Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Based on Note 7 in the lung EOD, should the Date of Diagnosis field be coded to an earlier CT scan date with a reported diagnosis of "RUL mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy" or to the later biopsy date with a reported diagnosis of small cell carcinoma? See discussion.
Note 7 states that "mediastinal lymphadenopathy" indicates involved lymph nodes for lung primaries. Should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date of the scan?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.
Histology (Pre-2007)/EOD-Lymph Nodes/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Breast: What codes are used to represent these fields for a breast case with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and a positive regional lymph node?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS]. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 6 [Axillary/regional lymph nodes, NOS] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 3 [Ipsilateral regional lymph nodes(s) involved only].
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field when the phenotype is combined B cell and T cell?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. There is no combination code for B cell and T cell. There is also no hierarchy established for choosing one code over the other. Therefore coding such a case as a pure B cell or a pure T cell would misrepresent the phenotype.
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.
Histology--CLL/SLL: If a tissue diagnosis of "small lymphocytic lymphoma" is made six months after an initial blood diagnosis of "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" should the histology be updated from 9823/3 to 9670/3?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not change the histology to small lymphocytic lymphoma (9670/3). The chronic lymphocytic leukemia has advanced/progressed and disseminated into other tissues from the blood during the last six months. If the patient presents with disease in the blood and/or bone marrow only, code to CLL. If a lymph node or other solid tissue is involved initially, code to SLL. For the case cited, the tissue involvement occurred six months after the initial diagnosis and the histology code is not changed to reflect the progression of disease.
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.
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to "unknown or not applicable" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. .
EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when CT scan shows a mass in the head of the pancreas "encompassing" the hepatic branch of the celiac artery? See discussion.
We do not code the term "encompasses" as involvement. However, should we code this case as extension to the peripancreatic tissue, NOS or as unknown?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.
This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home