Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: How many primaries and what M Rule applies for a diagnosis of noninvasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/2) in 2019, followed by a diagnosis of noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) in 2024?
Abstract two primaries using Urinary Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M12. The histologies include non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma (8130/2) and non-invasive micropapillary urothelial carcinoma (8131/3). The two histology codes are listed as subtypes of Papillary urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma in column 3 of Table 2.
WHO Classification of Urinary and Male Genital Tumors, 5th edition classifies micropapillary urothelial carcinoma as an aggressive subtype of urothelial carcinoma with carcinoma in situ present in more than half of all micropapillary carcinomas.
Rule 7 Note 3 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules states that there are no /2 subtypes for urothelial carcinoma with the exception of papillary urothelial carcinoma and applies to multiple occurrences of /2 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.
Grade, Differentiation--Bone Marrow: Can we use the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which lists myeloma as a B cell neoplasm under non-Hodgkin lymphomas, to code Grade, Differentiation field for myeloma to B-cell (code 6)?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:
No. Myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells. Plasma cells are the daughters of B cells. So technically it would be correct to call them B cell, but that is not common usage.
Cell marker (phenotype) should be coded in the Grade, Differentiation field for only leukemias and lymphomas, as classified in the ICD-O-3. In the ICD-O-3, myeloma is listed under Plasma Cell Tumors, not Lymphomas. When a cell marker is coded for a leukemia/lymphoma it should be coded only from pathology and/or cytology reports.
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/Histology--Head & Neck: Please clarify rule H3. The first statement is "Do not code terms that do not appear in the histology description". The second statement is "Do not code...unless the words...appear in the final diagnosis"
One of our pathology labs frequently will state "keratinizing squamous cell" in the microscopic description (histologic description), but only state "squamous cell carcinoma" in the final diagnosis. May we code from the histologic description if it's not in the final diagnosis?
Follow rule H3 and code squamous cell carcinoma for these cases unless you can obtain confirmation that these cases should be coded keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma from the lab and/or pathologist. Document this confirmation in your policies and procedures.
The MP/H rules were written with input from leading pathologists in each specialty area. Based on their expert opinion, we instruct registrars to code histology based on the information in the final diagnosis. The microscopic description may contain other terms, but the pathologist lists only the pertinent terms in the final diagnosis.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: How is a "carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, and signet ring cell features" coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SEER Manual applies to this case.
Rule 7: Code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. This is the rule with the lowest priority and should be used infrequently.
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.
CS Site Specific Factor 1--Colon: If the registrar did not support the CEA code recorded with the appropriate text documentation, should the central registry accept the registrars coding or change the value to 999?
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.Accept your registrars' codes at your discretion. It is encouraged, but not required, to enter text for CS data elements. These cases do not automatically default to code 999.
EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: What codes are used to represent these fields when only a regional lymph node (positive) aspiration is performed?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
With the exception of those sites/histologies that require 99 in these fields, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 97 [Positive nodes but number of positive nodes not specified]. Code the Number of Regional Lymph nodes Examined field to 95 [No regional Lymph nodes removed, but aspiration of regional Lymph nodes was performed].
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
Behavior Code--Bladder/Lymphoma: Should the "in situ" designation on a bladder primary's pathology report be ignored that states a diagnosis of "in situ lymphoma"?
Ignore the in situ designation. You cannot assign an in situ behavior code to a lymphoma primary. The term or designation of "in situ" is limited to solid tumors; carcinoma and/or cancer.
Surgery of Primary Site--Prostate: Is a prostate saturation biopsy coded under diagnostic biopsy or surgery?
A prostate saturation biopsy is a transperineal template-guided stereotactic saturation prostate biopsy that typically produces 30 to 80 core biopsies. This is an alternative biopsy technique used for some high-risk patients including men with persistently elevated PSA, those who have atypia on prior prostate biopsies, or men with biopsies showing high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Although this is a different procedure, it is still a diagnostic biopsy. Do not code prostate saturation biopsy under Surgery of Primary Site.
CS Eval/Surgery of Primary Site--Colon: When the only procedure performed is a polypectomy, if there is NO tumor at the margins, should CS TS/EXT-Eval be coded as 3 and the surgery coded as a polypectomy?
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.Assign eval code 3. A polypectomy with no tumor at the margin meets the criteria for pathologic staging.
Code polypectomy in Surgery of Primary site in this case.
An official website of the United States government
Home