FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.
For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."
Code the histology to 9975/3 [myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable]. Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, this neoplasm has the, "Clinical laboratory and morphological features of myeloproliferative neoplasm but fails to meet the criteria for a specific myeloproliferative neoplasm; or presents with features that overlap two or more MPN neoplasms."
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.
EOD-Extension--Kidney: How would this field be coded when the pathology report shows a 20 mm surface neoplasm with smaller yellow metastatic implants on the surface of the kidney?"
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex]. Tumor involves the cortical surface of the kidney with separate surface lesions, but does not extend beyond cortex.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology for a single lesion with "metaplastic carcinoma" and the majority of tumor has sarcomatoid appearance? Squamous cell carcinoma and high grade intraductal carcinoma are also present. Is the term "sarcomatoid" equivalent to sarcoma?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/2001: Code the Histology field to 8575/3 [metaplastic carcinoma]. Sarcomatoid is not coded as sarcoma.
The terms metaplastic carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and intraductal carcinoma are used, but only the metaplastic and squamous cell carcinomas are invasive. Metaplastic, loosely defined, means tissue that is not normal.
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.
Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis?
If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual.
Primary Site/Sarcoma--Breast: How should the primary site and stage be coded for osteosarcoma of breast? Is C509 correct or should the code be a different primary site? When assigning C509, the Collaborative Stage (CS) still pertains to breast cancer and AJCC stages it as a breast cancer and not as a sarcoma.
Code primary osteosarcoma of the breast to breast, C500-C509. Not all site and histology combinations can be staged in CS or AJCC. 9180/3 of breast cannot be staged using the CS breast schema. Breast (C500-C509) cannot be staged using the CS soft tissue schema. The same is true for AJCC. You can stage this case using SEER Summary Stage.
Important: Do NOT change the primary site or histology code based on whether or not the case can be CS or AJCC staged. We need to know how many cases are unable to be staged because of their primary site and histology combinations.
Reportability/Histology--Tongue: Is high grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue reportable; and is it the same as carcinoma in situ (CIS), code 8077/2?
High grade squamous dysplasia of the tongue is reportable as of 2021 and later as 8077/2.
Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)?
If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy.
CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?
This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.
Assign code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.
An official website of the United States government
Home