Histology/Date of Diagnosis--Hematopoietic, NOS: What code is used to represent histology for a June 2001 diagnosis of "myelodysplastic syndrome" followed by a September 2001 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "myelodysplasia evolving into an acute leukemic state"?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
Code the Histology field to 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome] and the Date of Diagnosis field to June 2001.
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.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion.
The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].
The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.
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.
EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.
Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:
1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.
2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.
3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.
If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.
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 (Pre-2007)--Breast: When two breast tumors with two different histologies, such as duct and mucinous are diagnosed in the same breast at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
Our rule is that multiple lesions of different histologic types are separate primaries. However, for separate tumors of duct and lobular, we report as a single primary. Since we now have a combination code for duct and other types of ca, do we report as a single primary or continue to report as separate primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
When there are two breast tumors, one mucinous, the other duct carcinoma, report as two primaries when the pathologist's opinion clearly states that there are separate primaries.
If there is no such information from the pathologist, the two tumors must be separate with clear (negative) margins to be reported as two primaries. Otherwise, report as one primary.
The ICD-O-3 combination codes are not intended to combine tumors of different histologic types.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion.
Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the "apex" information or the "cT1c" information?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.
Histology (Pre-2007): What code should be assigned to acinar adenocarcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign code 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. According to histology rule #4 for a single tumor on page 86 of the 2004 SEER manual, use a combination code if one exists.
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.
Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, "Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall"?
Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site.
Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code "random bladder biopsies" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is "focal carcinoma in situ"?
Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder.
EOD-Extension--Meninges: How do you code extension for a malignant meningioma that invades into the adjacent brain tissue?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 60. Code 60 is defined as a brain tumor that extends into the meninges. It is also the appropriate code to use for a tumor that extends from the meninges to the brain.
An official website of the United States government
Home