SEER Inquiry System - Search

Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later

For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology.

The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.

The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.

The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.

The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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.

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2017 ONLY: Code the histology as papillary urothelial carcinoma [8130].NOTE: In the CAP checklist, the statement that the tumor has a papillary configuration is a further description of this tumor. This is supported by the pathologist's stage of pTa [noninvasive papillary carcinoma]. Use the information from the CAP checklist when available. The MP/H Rules will be revised to include the term "configuration" in the specific histology terms for in situ tumors.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are

Step 1: Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. Choose one of the three (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) and go to the Urinary Histo rules. The module you use depends on the behavior and number of tumors identified in the primary site. In this case, the patient has a single bladder tumor per the submitted information.

Step 2: Start at Rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H15. Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. Stop at Rule H7. Code the histology as 8130/2 (noninvasive papillary urothelial carcinoma) when the urothelial carcinoma is stated to have a papillary configuration.

For cases diagnosed 2018 or later, refer to the Solid Tumor Rules, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/solidtumor/

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later

HGSIL of the vulva or vagina is reportable. HGSIL is a synonym for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III.

Code tomotherapy as 1 [Beam radiation].

Tomotherapy is external beam radiation therapy. It is a type of IMRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced mode of high-precision radiotherapy that utilizes computer-controlled x-ray accelerators to deliver radiation. Tomotherapy is a CT image guided IMRT.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 65 [Pre-epiglottic tissues]. Extension to "pre-epiglottic space" is equivalent to extension to "pre-epiglottic tissue."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The best code is 8381/3 [Endometroid adenofibroma, malignant]. According to our pathologist consultant: "Serous 'fibroadenoma' is not exactly standard terminology. I would guess the pathologist is looking at an adenofibroma with more fibro and less adeno and thus has changed the terminology around. The combination of the benign serous and malignant edometrioid is also a bit unusual. Each of the proposed codes is defendable, but I prefer endometrioid adenofibroma, 8381/3, because it puts the tumor in the adenofibroma category (less common) yet still identifies the malignant element (endometrioid), even though it does lose the serous. But anyone wanting to look at malignant adenofibromas would find the case, and we would carry it under the appropriate malignant component."

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.