Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term "plasma cell dyscrasia" a synonym for multiple myeloma?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-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.
MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: The new multiple primary rule M7 states that tumors diagnosed more than three years apart are multiple primaries. Does this apply to in situ bladder tumors that occur more than three years apart and to an in situ tumor that occurs three years after an invasive tumor?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use the MP/H rules in order. Rule M6 comes before rule M7.
M6 states that bladder tumors with certain histologies are a single primary. It is a single primary regardless of timing if there is any combination of:
papillary carcinoma [8050]
transitional cell carcinoma [8120-8124]
papillary transitional cell carcinoma [8130-8131]
Rule M7 applies to bladder tumors with histologies other than those listed above. If you have such a case, rule M7 applies to in-situ tumors and to an in situ three years after an invasive.
Surgery of Primary Site/Surgery Codes, NOS--Pancreas: What exactly is an extended pancreatoduodenectomy? Must the entire pancreas be resected in order to use code 70? What minimal requirements must be met to use code 70? How should a Whipple with cholecystectomy, partial omentectomy, common hepatic excision, portal vein resection, and lymphadenectomy be coded?
According to our research, a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) includes an en bloc resection of the pancreatic head, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, the duodenum, the upper jejunum, the distal portion of the stomach and the adjacent lymph nodes. The extended PD procedure includes extended lymphadenectomy, extended organ resection, and extended vascular resection and reconstruction.
Code 70 could be assigned without the entire pancreas being resected.
A Whipple procedure removes the head of the pancreas, duodenum, stomach and gallbladder and part the common bile duct. The portal vein resection is probably part of the common bile duct excision. If the omentectomy was performed for treatment of this primary, record it in "Surgical Procedure of Other Site." Record the lymphadenectomy in the lymph node data items.
Update to the Current Manual/SEER*RSA--SEER Site-specific Factor 1: The 2024 SEER Manual and SEER*RSA say that Codes 10-51 are hierarchical; use the highest code that applies (10 is highest, 51 is lowest). Should the guidance say that 51 is highest, 10 is lowest since code 10 is a HPV negative p16 test?
Assign the highest code with 51 as the highest and 10 the lowest when there is more than one test performed with differing results.
The SEER Manual will be updated in the 2025 release. SEER*RSA will be updated in a future release, version 3.3 in 2026, as version 3.2 has been updated for 2025.
Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If the surgical margins are greater than 1 cm for length and width but less than 1 cm for depth, do we code surgery in the 30-33 range?
Yes, assign a surgery code from the 30-33 range when any margin is less than 1 cm. Since tumor thickness is an important prognostic factor for cutaneous melanoma, the deep margin is of particular importance.
Collaborative Staging--Lung: Given that the AJCC lung TNM is not applicable for a high grade sarcoma of this site, how do we code Collaborative Stage for this site/histo combination when the pathologist indicates a TNM stage of T2bN0M0=stage III, using AJCC Soft Tissue Sarcoma schema?
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.
Use the lung schema to code CS for sarcoma of the lung. Complete the CS information as best you can from the medical record WITHOUT using the TNM Soft Tissue Sarcoma staging form. Visceral sarcomas are specifically excluded from soft tissue sarcoma TNM staging and sarcomas are excluded from the TNM staging for lung.
Sarcoma is listed on the Histology Exclusion Table for lung. When a case is coded in Collaborative Staging and the histology is on the exclusion list, SEER Summary Stage 1977 and 2000 can be assigned. For these cases, TNM will not be calculated and displayed results will be "T NA N NA M NA and Stage Group NA".
Surgery of Primary Site--Soft Tissue: What code is used to represent this field when an excisional biopsy of a soft tissue sarcoma is followed two weeks later with a wide excision (re-excision)?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 26 [partial resection]. According to the CoC, "Excision" in the surgery codes refers to the lesion and "partial resection" refers to the organ. The biopsy is a local excision (code 25). The wide resection is code 26, presuming that more than just the remaining lesion was removed.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
Histology--Breast: Does "cancerization" mean invasive for a breast tumor described as "DCIS with lobular cancerization"?
No, cancerization is not a synonym for invasive. Cells of DCIS can extend not only along the duct but also into the terminal lobules. This extension is referred to as lobular cancerization.
An official website of the United States government
Home