Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myeloproliferative syndrome, NOS" synonymous with "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" and, therefore, reportable under the new hematopoietic rules?
Myeloproliferative syndrome and the myeloproliferative diseases were used in the past to describe myeloproliferative neoplasms. For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, although the term "myeloproliferative syndrome" is not currently used to describe this disease, the synonyms "myeloproliferative syndrome" and "myeloproliferative disease" were added to the database for myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassified [9975/3].
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.
Histology (Pre-2007)/Flag--Pancreas: How is histology coded given that 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] of the pancreas is not on the SEER Site/Type validation listing?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Assign 8046 [non-small cell carcinoma] for "non-small cell carcinoma" of the pancreas. If necessary, override any site/type edits.
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/Histology--Skin: Is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth, DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2, or DFSP with focal myxoid features (2022) reportable for 2021-2022 diagnoses?
Yes. DFSP with fibrosarcomatous overgrowth and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous component Grade 2 are synonymous with fibrosarcomatous DFSP (8832/3). Our expert pathologist also advises that DFSP with focal myxoid features is the same as DFSP, myxoid (8832/3).
CS Extension--Cervix: How are "positive pelvic washings" coded for a cervical primary?
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.
According to the CS Steering Committee, positive pelvic washings for primary cervical cancer are not part of the staging criteria in the collaborative staging system (nor in TNM and FIGO). Document positive pelvic washings in a text field. The CS steering committee will add a statement to CS extension to clarify this for cervix uteri.
Primary Site/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: If the only lung mass described in CXR is a "hilar mass," is the primary site coded to C34.9 [Lung, NOS] or C34.0 [Main Bronchus; incl. Carina]? Also, can the size of the hilar mass be used to code the size of tumor field?
Because the only description available is "hilar mass," code primary site as C34.0.
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use size of mass for EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.
EOD-Extension--Ovary: What code is used to represent this field for an ovarian primary presenting with "spread to the omentum"?
For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Extension field to 75 [Peritoneal implants, NOS] because the size of the implants on the omentum is not known.
Note 6 was added to the EOD scheme which states that both direct extension and discontinuous metastasis to the omentum are coded in the range 70-75 depending on how the peritoneal implants are described.
Histology (Pre-2007)--Prostate: What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, cribriform type"?
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 8201/3 [cribriform carcinoma]. The word "type" is a term that indicates majority of the tumor. The term "cribriform" would be a term used to determine the histology code.
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.
Primary Site--Breast: What subsite code should be used for a diagnosis of "inflammatory carcinoma"?
Code the Primary Site field to C50.9 [Breast, NOS] for a breast primary presenting with inflammatory cancer unless there is a palpable mass within the breast. If there is a palpable mass, code the primary site to the position of the mass.
Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way?
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed.
Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy.
Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not.
Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?
Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.
For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.
For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.
An official website of the United States government
Home