System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/29/2024 14:25 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061049 Date of Diagnosis/Ambiguous Terminology--Lung: Would the date of a PET scan that states there is a mass in the lung which is "in the range of malignancy " be coded as the date of diagnosis or would the date of a subsequent bronchoscopy with biopsy be used for diagnosis date because it confirms a malignancy?

The date of diagnosis in this case is the date of the bronchoscopy with biopsy.

"In the range of malignancy" is not one of the ambiguous terms that are reportable. Please see the list of reportable ambiguous terms on page 3 of the 2004 SEER manual. Do not accession cases based on ambiguous terms not found on the reportable list.

 2006
20110009 Diagnostic confirmation/Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a 2/11/10 negative bone marrow biopsy with cytogenetic abnormalities if the physician makes a clinical diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia on 2/25/10? See Discussion.

2/11/10 bone marrow biopsy revealed "mild trilineal dysplastic changes in conjunction with chronicity of cytopenias is worrisome for MDS." Cytogenetics are positive for 5q deletion. Clinicopathologic correlation required for final diagnosis. On 2/25/10 the physician confirms a diagnosis of refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

Is the date of diagnosis 2/11/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 3 or 2/25/10 with diagnostic confirmation of 8?

The date of diagnosis is 2/25/10 and diagnostic confirmation is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only].

As the cytogenetics state, you need clinicopathologic correlation to get confirm a reportable diagnosis. There is no reportable diagnosis from the bone marrow biopsy. The cytogenetics were done (the pathologic part) and then the physician confirmed refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia [9985/3] (the clinical part). The diagnostic process and the determination of a reportable diagnosis were completed when the clinician made the statement that this is refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20071045 Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.

The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.

Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.

This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.

 2007
20190040

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is peripheral blood with a diagnosis of monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) phenotype reportable for any year? See Discussion.

SINQ 20180050 and 20130041 appear to have conflicting answers regarding the reportability of MBL with CLL (immuno)phenotype.

While the question content of SINQ 20180050 does not reference the CLL phenotype, it is included in the Discussion as part of the oncologist's assessment. The answer does not address the clinical diagnosis of MBL with CLL-phenotype and simply states that monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is not reportable.

SINQ 20130041 does include the CLL phenotype information in the primary question and it is expanded on in the discussion as present in peripheral blood. Based on that information, the answer is that it should be reportable and coded as CLL (9823/3).

The description in the question is for 9823/1 per WHO blue book 2016. This description and code are not reportable. We will review the other SINQ questions and revise if necessary.

 2019
20130180 Histology--Pancreas: What is the difference between pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) [8240/3] and the new ICD-O-3 terms pancreatic endocrine tumor, benign [8150/0] and pancreatic endocrine tumor, malignant [8150/3]? See Discussion. SEER Inquiry 20120035 discusses the reportability of pancreatic endocrine neoplasm (PanNETs) tumors.

The difference is that 8150 is for islet cell tumors. The preferred name was changed by WHO/IARC to reflect the current language used by pathologists to describe islet cell tumors [8150].

The 8240 histology code added the neuroendocrine tumor, grade 1, low or well differentiated terms to the carcinoid ICD-O name.

Islet cell tumors are more aggressive than the pancreatic NET tumors. Treatment and prognosis are determined by the histologic type. While the histology code 8150 is not new, the histology name has been updated.

2013
20170077

First Course Treatment: Should the definition in the 2016 SEER Coding Manual be revised for first course of treatment following disease progression for patients who complete the initial first course treatment plan without alteration but had one or more treatment modalities given after disease progression was identified? See Discussion.

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

The example cited above will not be included in the 2018 edition of the SEER manual. Removing this example will improve the consistency in recording first course of treatment for cases diagnosed 2018 and later.

 2017
20240035

Solid Tumor Rules--Urinary: The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules refers to the same row in Table 3. Should the example say Table 2 since Table 3 is non-reportable urinary tumors. See Discussion.

Rule M15

Abstract a single primary when synchronous, separate/non-contiguous tumors are on the same row in Table 2 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions.

Note: The same row means the tumors are

• The same histology (same four-digit ICD-O code) OR

• One is the preferred term (column 1) and the other is a synonym for the preferred term (column 2) OR

• A NOS (column 1/column 2) and the other is a subtype/variant of that NOS (column 3) OR

• A NOS histology in column 3 with an indented subtype/variant

Example: TURBT shows invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma 8130/3 and CIS/in situ urothelial carcinoma 8120/2. Abstract a single primary. Papillary urothelial carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma are on the same row in Table 3.

The example used in Rule M15 of the Urinary Solid Tumor Rules should refer to Table 2. We will update this in the next revision of the Rules.

 2024
20110116

MP/H/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code for "heterologous biphasic sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung with prominent rhabdomyoblastic and adenoca differentiation"?

The expert pathologist recommends coding histology to 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] for this combination histology.

Expert consultation: The designation "carcinosarcoma" is given when the pathology shows differentiation in both the sarcomatous (rhabdomyoblastic) and carcinomatous (adenoca) elements. This is emphasized in the path for this case with the term "biphasic." The term "heterologous" mean that the sarcomatous component is of a type not normal to lung. Rhabdomyoblastic means skeletal muscle differentiation. Because skeletal muscle is not normally found in lung it is heterologous. If it were smooth muscle, it would be homologous because smooth muscle is found in lung (as a part of the bronchi).

 2011
20031088

First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Hematopoietic, NOS: How do you code treatment for a myelodysplastic syndrome when a patient is admitted to receive a "second transfusion 7 months after diagnosis"?

The first course of treatment for these hematopoietic primaries lasts until there is a treatment change. For the case you cite the second transfusion (7 months after diagnosis) would be first course treatment. Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field to 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].

 2003
20120020

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a lumpectomy shows a single 6 mm "infiltrating mammary adenocarcinoma, histologic type: ductal (tubular)" tumor, and "peritumoral microscopic foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ"? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091117, tubular (ductal) carcinoma would be coded to 8211/3 [tubular]. However, in that case the tubular/ductal carcinoma is composed of a single tumor. In this case, the foci of DCIS were specifically stated to be peritumoral, and not a part of the infiltrating tubular carcinoma.

Are these microscopic foci of DCIS a separate primary per Rule M12 and SINQ 20110092 [two primaries are accessioned when one tumor is invasive and another is in situ, and histology codes differ at 1st, 2nd or 3rd numbers]? Does the size of the DCIS matter when there are two distinct histologies? Abstracting a second primary for these microscopic foci seems like over-reporting.

The following answers depend on what this pathologist means by "ductal (tubular)." According to the WHO classification, tubular is not a duct subtype. Check with the pathologist if possible to determine if the intended meaning is "tubular carcinoma" or "duct carcinoma".

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "tubular carcinoma": Accession two primaries, a tubular carcinoma [8211/3] and a ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type [8230/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Determine the provisional histologies of these tumors in order to apply the Multiple Primary rules. Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a breast primary, use the Breast Histology rules to determine the histology codes because there are site specific rules for breast primaries.

Determine the histology of in situ carcinoma, solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is intraductal carcinoma and a type of intraductal carcinoma. Solid is a specific type of DCIS. The histology is 8230/2.

Determine the histology of the invasive carcinoma, tubular carcinoma. Start at Rule H10. Code the histology when only one histologic type is identified, Tubular carcinoma was the only type identified. The histology is 8211/3.

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual after determining the histology of each tumor. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4, because the patient has a single invasive tumor and separate foci of DCIS. These tumors have ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the third (xxx) number and are, therefore, multiple primaries.

If the pathologist uses the expression "ductal (tubular)" as an equivalent of "duct carcinoma": Accession a single primary, a duct carcinoma [8500/3].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module, Rule M4 because the patient has a single invasive duct carcinoma and separate foci of solid type ductal carcinoma in situ. Multiple intraductal and/or duct carcinomas are a single primary. Table 1 identifies solid type as a specific type of intraductal carcinoma.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module, Rule H20. Code the invasive histology when both invasive and in situ tumors are present. Code the histology as 8500/3 [duct carcinoma].

 2012