Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20000277 | Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. | Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant. | We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.
Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.
As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. |
N/A | N/A | 2000 |
|
|
20100009 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion. | A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.
Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record. | Bladder | N/A | 2010 |
|
|
20020044 | Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion. |
Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex. |
SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland. |
Prostate | N/A | 2002 |
|
|
20031194 | Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description. |
We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans? Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes? |
Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. | Lung | N/A | 2003 |
|
|
20230009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply? See Discussion. |
Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2. All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule. Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies? |
Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms. Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis. Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates. Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that. A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included. |
Vulva | N/A | 2023 |
|
|
20180035 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted in this 2018 lung case? See Discussion. |
CT chest findings: 1. There is a dominant 1 cm. nodule in the left mid lung. 2. In addition, there is a new rather dominant bilobed nodule in the left lung base. 3. Distant metastases are not identified. Four months later, a doctor's note says routine follow-up visit status post Cyber Knife stereotactic body radiation therapy for synchronous early stage non-small cell carcinomas of the left upper and left lower lobes, both Stage IA. He is medically inoperable. This situation is described as a second primary tumor in AJCC8 page 438. However, by the 2018 Lung Solid Tumor rules, this would be a single primary, per rule M7. Is that correct? |
Abstract one primary per Rule M7. Follow the Lung Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries. The AJCC TNM manual is used for staging. Do not apply AJCC instructions to determine the number of primaries. |
Lung | N/A | 2018 |
|
|
20130122 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when an excisional biopsy of a chest wall nodule shows diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%) and follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%)? See Discussion. | The patient presented with a right chest wall nodule. The PET scan showed widespread disease: subcutaneous nodule/mass in the left scalp and right chest wall; large right paraspinal mass; soft tissue density likely a second early paraspinal mass at the right costovertebral junction; right paravertebral mass; and abnormal bony foci in the right humeral head, right iliac crest, right acetabulum and right femur. The physical exam showed 2 cm left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy and a firm 3 cm mass in the right chest wall. Lungs were clear. Abdomen showed no masses or ascites, and no palpable hepatosplenomegaly.
Chest wall nodule excisional biopsy pathology: Lymph node and adjacent soft tissue: Malignant lymphoma with components: 1. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (40%). 2. Follicular lymphoma, grade 3A (60%). Pathology report note states the diffuse large cell lymphoma is probably arising from the follicular center cell lymphoma.
Should this be a single primary? There is no mention of cutaneous lymphoma. |
Accession a single primary per Rule M4. Code histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] per Rule PH11.
Per Rule M4, accession a single primary when two or more non-Hodgkin lymphomas are present in the same lymph node or organ.
Per Rule PH11 code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma are present in the same lymph node(s), lymph node region(s), organ(s), tissue(s) or bone marrow.
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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20130023 | Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion. |
If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules? |
The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.
The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.
Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720. |
Brain and CNS | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20020003 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.
The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon. |
N/A | N/A | 2002 | |
|
|
20130209 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new bone marrow diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia that follows a 2007 treated diagnosis of a JAK-2 positive polycythemia vera a new primary? |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph. Per Rule M10, abstract two primaries. Per the Heme DB, polycythemia vera [9950/3] transforms to an acute myelogenous leukemia [9861/3]. According to Rule M10, one is to abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm (e.g., polycythemia vera) AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm (e.g., acute myelogenous leukemia) more than 21 days after the chronic diagnosis. 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. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2013 |
An official website of the United States government
