Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later.
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.
Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].
According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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.
Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.
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.
EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].
Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter?
One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply).
EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex.
EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).
Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries?
Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for "anaplastic" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed.
Histology--Pancreas: How is a "gastrin and somatostatin producing endocrine neoplasm" coded that has lymph node metastasis?
The best code available for this situation is 8153/3 [Gastrinoma, malignant].
Many pancreatic endocrine tumors produce more than one peptide, such as gastrin and somatostatin in this case. ICD-O-3 does not provide a code for pancreatic endocrine tumors which produce more than one peptide. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, there is a distinct hormonal syndrome associated with gastrin producing tumors, and not with many of the somatostatin producing tumors. Therefore, our pathologist consultant advises us to code to gastrinoma in this case.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Should the histology "endometroid adenocarcinoma arising in a serous fibroadenoma" be coded to 8380 [Endometroid adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 9014 [Malignant serous fibroadenoma]?
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.
An official website of the United States government
Home