SEER Inquiry System - Search

This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.

FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.

For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."

This answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to 2018. For 2018 and later cases, refer to the Non-Malignant CNS Solid Tumor Rules.

Note: This answer updates previous answers which have been removed from the SEER Inquiry System.

Intraosseous meningiomas are not reportable. You are correct, these are rare meningiomas originating in bone. The term "sphenoid wing meningioma" is sometimes used for an intraosseous meningioma of the sphenoid bone. Yes, it's possible to have a meningioma of the sphenoid wing on imaging that arises from the meninges NOT the bone. Read the available information carefully. When the site of origin is described as "along the sphenoid wing" or "overlying the sphenoid wing" report the meningioma. These descriptions indicate that the meningioma originates from the meninges covering bone rather than the bone itself. Meningioma arising in bone is rare enough, that when present, we would expect it to be clearly stated as such. In the absence of a statement indicating origin in bone, the meningioma is most likely arising from meninges covering the bone.

This answer has been corrected. Previous answer is shown below under "History."

Assign 9591/3 for this case.

See also SINQ 20190070.

There is no way for us to know what behavior to assign WHO grade II tumors when the pathologist does not provide that information. Defaulting to either benign or malignant is incorrect. Please follow back with the pathologist to determine behavior.

The behavior must be non-malignant, meaning /0 or /1, or the tumor is a WHO Grade 1, to be reportable as non-malignant CNS tumor. Refer to Table Instructions under Table 1, WHO Grades of Select CNS Neoplasms that says to use non-malignant CNS rules for all WHO Grade 1 tumors and to use the appropriate rules for WHO Grade 2 tumors

Use ICD-O and all updates if not listed in Table 6 according to non-malignant CNS Histology Rule H3 (for single tumor) and Rule H8 (for multiple tumors) when only one histology is present.

There is no strict timeframe for Date of Conclusive Terminology. The diagnosis using conclusive terminology could be made any time following the diagnostic work-up.

The date of conclusive terminology is related to code 2 [ambiguous term followed by conclusive term] in the data item "Ambiguous terminology." Assign code 2 when a conclusive diagnosis is made 60 days or more after a diagnosis using ambiguous terminology. Record the date of the conclusive diagnosis in "Date of Conclusive Terminology."

There is no available code that fits this situation. We recommend assigning code 6 (Surgery of the primary site was not performed; it was recommended by the patient’s physician, but was not performed as part of the first course of therapy. No reason was noted in patient record.) and documenting the situation in a text field.

There is currently no rule in the urinary site MP/H Rules for this combination of histologies. The best option is to code the histology to 8045/3 [mixed small cell carcinoma], a combination of small cell with other types of carcinoma. The presence of small cell carcinoma drives the treatment decisions for this case.

This issue will be addressed in the next revision of the MP/H Rules.

There is a similar question in the FORDS forum of the CoC CAnswer Forum. CoC is the curator for the surgery codes.

Surgical Procedure to Primary Site - Gross excision of the lesion, code in 30s series

Surgical Procedure to Other Site (removal of eye) - code 4

http://cancerbulletin.facs.org/forums/forum/fords-national-cancer-data-base/fords/first-course-of-treatment/surgery/56355-sebaceous-carcinoma-of-the-eyelid-primary-surgery-code

There are two primaries. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: For the rt breast, code Surgery of Primary Site to 51. The contralateral left breast malignancy is not involved with the right breast primary by either direct extension or metastasis. Codes 42 and 52 are used to capture prophylactic mastectomy of the opposite noncancerous breast. In this case, the opposite breast has cancer so these codes cannot be used. Code Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery to 5 and Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 0.

For the lt breast, code Surgery of Primary Site to 41, Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 0, and Surgical Procedure of Other Site to 0.

There are two primaries according to the information provided.

1. VAIN III March 2001.

2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.