Reportability/Behavior--Skin: Is an "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" with an ICDO-3 histology code of 8830 reportable with a behavior code of 3 or is it nonreportable with a behavior code of 1?
Yes, "atypical fibroxanthoma (superficial malignant fibrous histiocytoma)" is reportable. The information in parentheses provides more detail and confirms a reportable malignancy.
Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How is an "advanced MDS (RAEB-T)/emerging AML" coded when discovered on a bone marrow biopsy?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code histology to 9984/3 [RAEB-T]. This particular MDS is refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation. It has not yet progressed to acute myeloid leukemia.
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)/Diagnostic Confirmation: Which histology code is preferred if the CBD brushing is positive for malignant cells, cytologically most consistent with ductal adenocarcinoma [8500/3], and the common hepatic artery lymph node biopsy has metastatic adenocarcinoma, consistent with cholangiocarcinoma [8160/3]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign histology code 8160 [Cholangiocarcinoma]. Code from the pathology specimen when available. In this case, the only pathology is from the lymph node specimen.
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.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Does SEER agree with our pathologist who contends that "by convention lobular carcinoma is considered to be grade 2"?
No. SEER does not have a default grade code for lobular carcinoma. Code the grade as stated in the pathology report. If no grade is stated, code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable].
SEER Manual/Reportability--Vulva: Is vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN II) alone reportable? An example is a final diagnosis from a pathology report that states only 'VIN II' with no additional details/wording.
Report VIN II. The 2024 SEER Manual lists this as a separate diagnosis in the Reportability section under Malignant Histologies 1.a.x.
CS Size of Tumor/CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How should these fields be coded for benign CNS tumors?
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.Code CS Extension as 05 [Benign or borderline brain tumors]. Code the size of the tumor if specified. Otherwise code CS Tumor Size as 999 for benign CNS tumors.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "Ductal carcinoma in situ; 6 mm focus of invasion is a pure mucinous carcinoma that appears to have arisen in the background of encysted papillary carcinoma."
Code to mucinous (8480) since that is the only clearly invasive component of this diagnosis.
According to our pathologist consultant, "Encysted papillary carcinoma is the same thing as intracystic papillry carcinoma, which I think of as an intraductal papillary carcinoma which has greatly expanded the duct to form a cyst-like structure. It generally behaves in an in-situ rather than an invasive fashion. The only clearly invasive component is the mucinous carcinoma, which is what I would code."
Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?
Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:
1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.
2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.
3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.
An official website of the United States government
Home