SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

Yes. Code CS Extension-Clinical Extension to 15 [Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g., for elevated PSA (clinically inapparent)] for clinically inapparent prostate cancer with positive apex biopsy.

According to the editors of ICD-O-3, lobular neoplasia grade 2 is not equivalent to LCIS. It is not a reportable term. Lobular neoplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia are equivalent terms having a three grade system. Only LN/LIN grade 3 would be reportable since those terms are analogous to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Complete two abstracts, one for left fallopian tube and one for right fallopian tube. This case has been determined to be two primaries by the pathologist. Bilateral involvement of paired sites (other than ovary, retinoblastoma and Wilms tumor) with the same histology within two months requires a determination of whether there are one or two primaries. The pathologist in the case above has made this determination.

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 1998-2003: For this scenario, assign code 15 if an ultrasound was not performed, performed and negative, or when it is unknown whether or not an ultrasound was performed. Assign code 30 only if an ultrasound was performed and there is no documentation stating that it was negative or positive.

Please refer to the Prostate EOD Coding Guidelines for all of the instructions pertaining to the coding of prostate EOD.

No. These schwannomas are not intracranial and therefore, are not reportable to SEER. The occipital nerve is not one of the 12 intracranial nerves (i.e., Abducens, Auditory (vestibulocochlear), Facial, Glossopharyngeal, Hypoglossal, Oculomotor, Olfactory, Optic, Spinal Accessory, Trigeminal, Trochlear, and Vagus).

The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract the example above as two primaries. Hematologic malignancies (including lymphoma) and solid tumors are handled differently when determining the number of primaries. For hematologic malignancies, take the physician's opinion into account. Use the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table as an aid when there is insufficient information available.

For solid tumors, follow the multiple primary rules in the SEER Program Code Manual.

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.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.

Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:

Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]

Familial adenomatous colon polyposis

Familial colonic polyposis

Multiple familial polyposis

In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:

Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system

Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty

History of colectomy

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.

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.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.