SEER Inquiry System - Search

Revised answer based on ST rules

Yes, a Tuberculum sella meningioma is reportable if diagnosed 2004 or later. Code the primary site C700, cerebral meninges. It is a meningioma originating from the meninges of the Tuberculum sellae, which is part of the sphenoid bone.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, rule M6 applies and this is a single primary.

Flat transitional cell carcinoma and carcinoma in situ of the bladder are synonymous. See the definition of "Flat Tumor (bladder)/Noninvasive flat TCC" in the Urinary Terms and Definitions section of the 2007 MP/H manual.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Accession as two breast primaries -- the first lobular ca in 1991; the second lobular and DCIS in 2002.

The differing histologies and the length of time between them negate the physician's designation as "recurrent" in this case.

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.

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.

Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.

Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are "subsets" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].

Yes, LCIS is reportable. Staging does not determine reportability. Follow the reportability requirements of your state and national standard setter. SEER reportability requirements are found in the SEER manual starting on page 5, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2016/SPCSM_2016_maindoc.pdf

The guidance provided in SINQ 20130221 still applies. Accession two primaries, adenocarcinoma [8140/3] of the prostate [C619], followed by small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma [8041/3] of the prostate [C619] for each of the examples given per Rule M10 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules, Prostate. In each case, the second histology (because it is not adenocarcinoma) is a new prostate primary. Small cell carcinoma and small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma are not adenocarcinomas. As a result, they are not covered by Rule M3.

For the case described in this SINQ submission, based on the findings of a lobular mass in the prostate bed, this is a second primary (there is residual prostatic tissue).

This is unchanged from the 2007 Multiple Primaries Rules for Other Sites.

Since the first diagnosis is in situ, and the later diagnosis is invasive, the 2019 diagnosis is a new primary even though it may be the same non-treated tumor.

For cases diagnosed 2018 and later, abstract multiple primaries according to the 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M17 that states

Abstract multiple primaries when an invasive tumor occurs more than 60 days after an in situ tumor in the same breast.

Note 1: The rules are hierarchical. Only use this rule when none of the previous rules apply.

Note 2: Abstract both the invasive and in situ tumors.

Note 3: Abstract as multiple primaries even if physician states the invasive tumor is disease recurrence or progression.

Note 4: This rule is based on long-term epidemiologic studies of recurrence intervals. The specialty medical experts (SMEs) reviewed and approved these rules. Many of the SMEs were also authors, co-authors, or editors of the AJCC Staging Manual.

Code as one primary (9920/3). This case does not fit the rules very well, since it is a treatment-related neoplasm and involves a transformation of MDS to AML during the clinical workup. Per the abstractor notes for 9920/3, code 9920/3 when the physician comments that the neoplasm is treatment related. This can be for the MDS or the AML. Use text fields to document that it was first referred to as MDS and then transformed to AML. If you followed the rules strictly and coded this as two primaries (the MDS and AML), you would lose the information that this was treatment related, which is more important.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Myelodysplastic disorder is a synonym for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). If no further workup is done or no additional information can be found, code the histology of myelodysplastic disorder to 9989/3 [MDS] for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and later.

Refer to the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB, Abstractor Notes for MDS. Myelodysplastic (disorder) syndrome is a NOS term. Usually when this diagnosis is made, the physician will conduct further tests to determine a more specific disease in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms group. Other specific histologies include: refractory anemia with unilineage dysplasia, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia, refractory anemia with excess blasts, myelodysplastic syndrome with del(5q), childhood myelodysplastic syndrome. If a more specific disease is diagnosed, code to that specific neoplasm.

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.