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.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
There are two primaries in this example:
1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]
2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].
There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.
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--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with "spread to the omentum"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described.
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 Extension--Lung: How is this field coded for a tumor in the right middle lobe with extension to the bronchus intermedius?
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 CS extension code 20
[Extension from other parts of lung to main stem bronchus, NOS
(EXCLUDES superficial tumor as described in code 11)
Tumor involving main stem bronchus greater than or equal to 2.0 cm from carina (primary in lung or main stem bronchus)].
A right middle lobe tumor that extends to the bronchus intermedius is one that is extending to the main stem bronchus from another part of the lung. The bronchus intermedius is the lower part of the main stem bronchus on the right. It is more than 2.0 cm away from the carina.
Reportability/AmbiguousTerminology: Because there is a caveat in the SEER PCM, 3rd edition to ignore adverbs such as "strongly" when assessing reportability, should a term such as "likely" cancerous be reportable given than the expression "most likely" cancerous is reportable?
"Likely cancerous" is NOT reportable.
The CoC, NPCR and SEER have agreed to a strict interpretation of the ambiguous terms list. Terms that do not appear on the list are not diagnostic of cancer.
Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds "what appears to be the top of a melanoma" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds "features consistent with lentigo maligna?"
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type.
According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.
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.
Collaborative Staging--Lung: Given that the AJCC lung TNM is not applicable for a high grade sarcoma of this site, how do we code Collaborative Stage for this site/histo combination when the pathologist indicates a TNM stage of T2bN0M0=stage III, using AJCC Soft Tissue Sarcoma schema?
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 lung schema to code CS for sarcoma of the lung. Complete the CS information as best you can from the medical record WITHOUT using the TNM Soft Tissue Sarcoma staging form. Visceral sarcomas are specifically excluded from soft tissue sarcoma TNM staging and sarcomas are excluded from the TNM staging for lung.
Sarcoma is listed on the Histology Exclusion Table for lung. When a case is coded in Collaborative Staging and the histology is on the exclusion list, SEER Summary Stage 1977 and 2000 can be assigned. For these cases, TNM will not be calculated and displayed results will be "T NA N NA M NA and Stage Group NA".
An official website of the United States government
Home