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: 07/03/2024 18:26 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120074 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed in 2004 with extranodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach followed by a 2011 diagnosis of DLBCL involving abdominal lymph nodes? See Discussion. In 2004 a patient's extranodal DLBCL was treated with a partial gastrectomy at another facility. A recurrence of DLBCL was diagnosed in 2011 by a fine needle aspiration of abdominal lymph nodes. The patient presented to this facility for chemotherapy.

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

This case is accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and diagnosis date to 2004. Per Rule M2, abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.

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.

2012
20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

 2007
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013
20110072 Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?

Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.

Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.

2011
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20091038 CS Tumor Size--Breast: Do the tumor size instructions in the CS Manual take priority over those in the SEER manual? See Discussion. In regards to priority order of sources to be used in coding size for breast and lung, we are instructed to use the site-specific instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual over the general instructions in the CS Manual (see SINQ 20061109). Thus, physical exam size would be used over an imaging size. I&R question 2389 instructs registrars to use an imaging size over a physical exam size. This inconsistency creates confusion for them. Do the answers given in I&R not take into account the information in the SEER Manual? As a SEER Registry, which rules do we tell our hospitals to use? Are ACoS accredited hospitals required to use I&R over SINQ?

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.The current SEER instructions and the CS instructions for source of tumor size information are the same. The tumor size priority source instruction in the 2004 SEER manual is not included in the 2007 SEER manual. SINQ 20061109 has been updated for clarification. There is no conflict between SEER instructions and I&R instructions at this time. SEER and the CoC collaborate, endeavoring to provide consistent instructions and to resolve inconsistencies.

 2009
20041025 Immunotherapy/Chemotherapy: Are monoclonal antibodies, such as Avastin and Erbitux, coded as immunotherapy or chemotherapy? See Discussion. In review of the "FDA-approved oncology agents not listed in SEER Book 8" provided in 5/02, it appears "monoclonal antibodies" are coded as immunotherapy. Code Avastin and Erbitux as chemotherapy because both of these drugs are growth inhibitors. Code growth inhibitors (cytostatic agents) as chemotherapy. Do not assume that monoclonal antibodies are coded as immunotherapy. 2004
20051020 CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion. In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones.

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.

First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage.

If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated].

 2005
20000260 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: When the pathology report does not specify dimensions for the invasive component, how is tumor size coded? See discussion. In some cases the tumor has both invasive and in situ components. The pathologist sometimes does not report the size for the invasive portion of the tumor. In most cases, the invasive portion is described as a percentage of the tumor mass. From January 1, 1998 and forward: Follow the Revised Breast EOD instructions. If the size of the invasive component is not given, record the size of the entire tumor in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field. Assign the appropriate EOD-Extension code for the situation. 2000
20120059 Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500.

Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.

If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5].

2012