Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description.
On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site.
Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM.
The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate primaries.
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-Pathologic Extension--Prostate/Lymphoma: How is this field coded for a prostatic lymphoma?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not code the prostate pathologic extent of disease field for prostatic lymphoma. Leave the path extension for prostate field blank. Code the extent of disease using the lymphoma scheme. Use ONLY the lymphoma scheme - do NOT try to code both lymphoma and prostate extension fields for prostatic lymphoma.
Histology/Reportability/Behavior Code--Testis: Is a mature teratoma that is metastatic to lymph nodes reportable? See Description.
Pathology report states, "Histologic sections reveal lymph node metastases, consisting predominantly of mature teratoma. In addition, there are cells scattered through the fibrous stroma which exhibit mild cytologic atypia but have low N:C ratios. The largest metastasis grossly measures 10cm. In addition extracapsular extension is identified. Diagnosis: Lymph Nodes--Metastatic Testicular Carcinoma Involving Multiple Lymph Nodes." The morphology code for mature teratoma is 9080/0. The pathologist does not classify this as an immature teratoma (9080/3). Is this reportable?
Yes, this metastatic teratoma is reportable.
This is a malignant teratoma by virtue of the lymph node metastases. Code the histology as 9080/3 [Teratoma, malignant, NOS]. Primary site is testis [C62_].
EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description.
The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement.
EOD-Extension--Colon: How is this field coded for an appendical primary when the appendix has ruptured and intrapentoneal fluid is positive?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD extension as 85 [Metastasis]. Positive intraperitoneal fluid is equivalent to distant metastasis (implantation) for colon, including appendix, primaries.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a "focus of in situ"? See Description.
For example: needle bx diagnosis is "tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca." The lumpectomy path states "single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca." Can size be coded 001?
Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection.
Ambiguous Terminology/Histology (Pre-2007): How do we code histology when there is a difference between the histology mentioned on a suspicious cytology and the clinical diagnosis by the treating physician? See Description.
An FNA of pancreas is stated as "highly atypical cells present, suspicious for pancreatic ductal carcinoma." The attending physician states the patient has pancreatic carcinoma. Can histology be coded 8500/3 [infiltrating duct carcinoma, NOS] or should it be 8010/3 [carcinoma, NOS]?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the histology from a suspicious cytology when this histology is supported by the clinical diagnosis.
Code the example above to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS].
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.
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.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor/First Course Treatment--Breast: How is tumor size coded when preventative tamoxifen treatment precedes breast cancer diagnosis? Can we code the tumor size from the surgical specimen? Is tamoxifen treatment here? See Description.
What is the tumor size in this situation? Patient is on the STAR trial (preventative tamoxifen for women with high risk for breast cancer). Patient develops breast cancer and has surgery.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the surgical pathology report.
Do not code this preventative tamoxifen as first course cancer-directed treatment. This tamoxifen was part of a clinical trial intending to delay or prevent beast cancer from developing.
An official website of the United States government
Home