Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.
Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion.
Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation.
The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion.
Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the "apex" information or the "cT1c" information?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.
EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion.
"insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.
EOD-Extension--Kidney: If a "tumor thrombus" in a renal vein is discontinuous from the primary tumor in the kidney, is it still coded to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS], rather than 85 [Metastasis]?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS]. A thrombus can be a bolus of tumor cells within a large vein that may or may not still be connected/contiguous with the primary tumor. However, both a discontinuous and contiguous thrombus are coded to 60.
SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.
1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.
2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?
Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer.
Reportability/Behavior Code--Bone Marrow: Is T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia SEER reportable? Pages 102, 147, 156, 160-162 and 167 of the ICD-O-3 list it as 9831/1, but on page 17 this is listed as 9831/3.
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia [9831] is a very indolent form of leukemia. It was assigned a behavior code of 1 by the editors of ICD-O-3 (as noted on pages 102, 147, 156 160-162, and 167 of the ICD-O-3 manual). The table on page 17 is the World Health Organization list of hematopoietic and lymphoid tumors. WHO recognizes TCLGLL as a malignancy. The disease is infrequently symptomatic enough to be diagnosed. However, when any of the terms listed with code 9831 are described as malignant or aggressive, report to SEER as a malignancy with a behavior code of /3.
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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Many melanoma patients have multiple occurrences over time that are not called recurrent and often are even in the same skin subsite, some in situ only and others alternating between in situ and invasive. Should these multiple occurrences really be new primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Unless it is stated to be a RECURRENT or METASTATIC melanoma, record each melanoma as a separate primary when:
1. The occurrences are more than two months apart.
2. The fourth digit of the ICD-O topography code for skin [C44._] is different .
3. The first three digits of ICD-O-3 morphology code are different.
4. An in situ melanoma is followed by an invasive melanoma.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used for histology "tubular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8211/3 [Tubular carcinoma]. According to histology rule #2 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumor are present.
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