SEER Inquiry System - Search

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The general instructions for assigning histology codes are to code as precisely as possible. Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation is the definition of the FAB M2 category. A pathologist does not need to provide every word in the term associated with an ICD-O code; pathologists don't always talk that way. AML M2 is a very specific diagnosis and should be coded to 9874/3.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

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 information from the pathologic evaluation to code CS Lymph nodes.

In the nodes evaluation field, assign code 6 [Regional lymph nodes removed for examination with pre-surgical systemic treatment or radiation and lymph node evaluation based on pathologic evidence]. See CS Lymph Nodes note 4.

Intramedullary hemangiomas in T5 and T6 are not reportable.

These benign tumors originate in the bone, not spinal canal, cord or dura. Benign tumors of the bone are not reportable.

According to WHO, the most common sites of involvement are the vertebral bodies, followed by craniofacial skeleton and long bones.

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.

This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors.

The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

Assign code 16 [Hyperthermia]. See the SEER Note on page C-747 of the 2007 SEER Manual:

Code Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy (TUMT) as 16.

For a case diagnosed in 2003, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. See Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, revised August 2002, 3rd example on page 5 and page 3, #4.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8507/3 [Duct micropapillary carcinoma]. Use rule H12.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.

Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.