Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?
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 cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.
The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.
Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.
Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "evolving" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:No, it is not SEER reportable. The diagnosis of "evolving" multiple myeloma could represent a plasmacytoma, plasma cell dyscrasia or another lymphoproliferative disorder. Some of these histologies are SEER reportable, but some are not. Additional information would be needed to determine reportability. If you are unable to obtain more information, the case is non-reportable.
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/Histology--Mycosis Fungoides/Cutaneous T cell Lymphoma: Physicians often use the terms cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and mycosis fungoides interchangeably and yet the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that these 2 diagnoses represent separate primaries. Do these cases represent one primary? If so, what histologic type should they be coded to?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The patient does not have two different malignancies. Code the Histology field to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides], the specific type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Mycosis fungoides is one of several types of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Physicians often refer to mycosis fungoides by the "umbrella term" cutaneous T cell lymphoma.
The table indicates that the broad category of "T/NK-cell NHL" (which includes CTCL) and mycosis fungoides are presumably separate primaries because several entities are included in that broad category. In the specific case cited above, one entity (CTCL) within the broad category (T/NK-cell NHL) and mycosis fungoides are not separate primaries.
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.
Reportability--Melanoma: Is the final diagnosis for an excisional skin biopsy of "compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression" reportable if a re-excision may be clinically indicated because there is an "overlap of morphology between malignant melanoma and nevi with severe atypia, and there's evidence of regression"?
Compound nevus with severe atypia is not reportable unless also stated to be malignant melanoma or melanoma in situ.
Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: If the pathology states non-small cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC), consistent with squamous cell carcinoma, is the code non-small cell carcinoma according to the Solid Tumor Rules? The Medical Oncologist states that the tumor is a squamous cell carcinoma. In these instances would you code the squamous cell carcinoma since you have a definite physician statement?
Code the histology to SCC 8070/3.
Based on registrar feedback on the NSCLC rule, we added a rule that specifically addresses when ambiguous terminology can be used to code histology other than NSCLC. The lung rules were update 10/12/2018 so please make sure you are using the currently posted rules. The new rule is: Rule H3-Code the specific histology when the diagnosis is non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) consistent with (or any other ambiguous term) a specific carcinoma (such as adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, etc.) when:
* Clinically confirmed by a physician (attending, pathologist, oncologist, pulmonologist, etc.)
* Patient is treated for the histology described by an ambiguous term
* The case is accessioned (added to your database) based on ambiguous terminology and no other histology information is available/documented
Example 1: The pathology diagnosis is NSCLC consistent with adenocarcinoma. The oncology consult says the patient has adenocarcinoma of the right lung. This is clinical confirmation of the diagnosis, code adenocarcinoma.
Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a diagnosis based solely on positive flow cytometry is reportable even if a bone marrow biopsy is negative, how is diagnostic confirmation coded?
For cases diagnosed prior to 2010
The case is reportable if a recognized medical practitioner says the patient has cancer.
A flow cytometry alone is not diagnostic but it may be supported by either a positive bone marrow or a clinician's statement. If the clinicians statement is based only on flow cytometry, code diagnostic confirmation to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].
Reportability--Skin: Effective 2021, a cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is a related term for smooth muscle tumor, NOS (8897/1) in ICD-O-3.2. Currently, we have been capturing these as a C44_ (leiomyosarcoma, 8890/3) but the 2019 SEER inquiry states that atypical intradermal smooth muscle neoplasm (AISMN) was previously termed cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. This is not documented on the 2018 ICD-O-3 updates. Should this 2019 case be 8897/1 or 8890/3?
Cutaneous leiomyosarcoma is reportable for 2019. Code histology to leiomyosarcoma 8890/3.
As of cases diagnosed 1/1/2021, it is no longer reportable based on assignment to 8897/1 in ICD-O-3.2.
EOD-Extension--Urinary Tract: Can the rules used to code bladder extension involving the term "no involvement of muscularis/and no mention of subepithelium/submuscosa" be used to code extension for other urinary tract primaries, such as ureter?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. The inferred descriptions of noninvasion apply to bladder cases only.
Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done?
Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of "Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)"? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III.
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order:
1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly)
2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II)
3. BR scores
4. BR grade
5. Nuclear grade
On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of "II/III" may be a typo that should state I/III.
An official website of the United States government
Home