Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: If a patient presents with two separate lesions on the left cheek (i.e., left lateral cheek and left upper cheek) that both are histologically confirmed to be superficial spreading melanoma on the same day, is this coded as one or two primaries?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code as one primary.
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/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion.
ACR website:
Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant.
Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion.
There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.
This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.
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.
Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when there are invasive and in situ components in a tumor, but only the in situ component is graded (e.g., Invasive ductal carcinoma with high grade ductal carcinoma in situ)?
Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. The grade is taken from the invasive component only.
Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion.
If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.
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--Cervix: How do you code tumor extension described as "the in situ lesion extends from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina"? See discussion.
Example: Cone biopsy of cervix and vaginal vault both show ca in situ. The op report stated: "lesion extending from the left lateral portion of the cervix onto the left lateral portion of the vagina." The pathologist stated it "appeared to be an in situ lesion extending from the cervix to the mucosa of the vagina."
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the Primary Site to C53.9 [Cervix uteri] and the EOD-Extension filed to 00 [in situ]. In situ is a measurement of invasion. Extension of the cervical in situ carcinoma via the mucosa to the vagina does not affect the EOD extension code.
EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion.
The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?
For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."
Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery: Should this field be coded to "unknown or not applicable" for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries?
For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 9 [Unknown or not applicable] for all hematopoietic morphologies, brain primaries and unknown primaries. .
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
An official website of the United States government
Home