SEER Inquiry System - Search

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

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.CS Tumor Size: Assign code 040 for tumor size and code SSF6 as 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS TS]. The size of the invasive component is not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive are not known.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Using the pre-2007 multiple primary rules, the PTCC of the bladder in 2000 and the invasive TCC of the right ureter in Nov. 2004 would have been abstracted as separate primaries.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate the May 2007 diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The May 2007 diagnosis is the same primary.

Rule M4 does not apply because of the 2000 bladder primary. A clarification will be added to M4 to stress that for the urinary rules, any urinary tumor up to the present point in time is counted when applying this rule.

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 cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2013:

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, this is one primary, assuming these are wider excisions of the same tumor.

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.