SEER Inquiry System - Search

Code Primary Site to C480 (retroperitoneum). 

Endometrial tissue may "break away” from the uterus and implant throughout the pelvic and abdominal cavities. This can occur in patients who suffer from endometriosis. This tissue remains behind when surgical removal of the uterus is done. Common sites of implantation are colon, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, and bladder. These cells may become malignant. When the uterus is no longer present (patient had surgical removal), code the site where the carcinoma was identified.

The site-morphology combination of C480 and 8380/3 was designated as an unlikely site-morphology combination by the Cancer PathCHART expert pathologist review, as this is a rare type of tumor. Assign a value of 1 in the Over-ride Site/Type [2030] data item in order to pass the Primary Site, Morphology-Type, Beh ICDO3, 2024 (SEER) edit.

Report LN II and LN III along with LIN II and LIN III and assign code 8520/2.

WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 5th edition, lists lobular neoplasia as acceptable, related terminology for lobular carcinoma in situ. 

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

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

The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

NOTE: This is a reportable case. 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 plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the 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.

Yes. This is a reportable diagnosis and should be accessioned with the histology coded to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable].

The word is a reportable ambiguous term per the Hematopoietic Coding Manual (Case Reportability Instructions, Rule 4).

Myeloproliferative disorder is synonymous with myeloproliferative disease. Myeloproliferative disease is listed as an alternate name for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable.

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.

No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.

A tumor considered to be malignant is reportable. "Considered to be" is an UNambiguous term.

Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.

Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.

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.For tumors diagnosed prior to 2004, the example above is a benign meningioma and not reportable to SEER.

For tumors diagnosed 2004 or later, code the behavior as 1 [Borderline malignancy]. Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors].

According to expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant.