MP/H Rules--Breast: What histology code is used for lobular carcinoma, pleomorphic type?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H14 and code the histology 8520 [lobular carcinoma]. 8520 is the only ICD-O-3 code for lobular carcinoma. There are no codes for specific lobular types.
Race, Ethnicity/Spanish Surname or Origin: Which Spanish Surname List (from 1980 census or 1990 census) would SEER prefer us to use to code 7 in Spanish Surname or Origin? See Discussion.
In the SEER coding manual, it refers to "a list of Hispanic/Spanish names" (5e), but does not specify which one to use. Again, for the Computed Ethnicity field, which Spanish Surname List does SEER prefer us to use?
Determine which list is better suited for your geographic area. If the 1990 list is used, determine the probability cut-off that seems most reasonable for your geographic area.
MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.
However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.
Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.
Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity?
No, "Alias" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm.
Reportability/Histology--Head and Neck: Is a right cerebellopontine (CP) angle endolymphatic sac papillary tumor (ELST) reportable? If so, what is the histology code?
Revised December 2015
ELST is reportable. Code histology to adenocarcinoma (8140/3). Code primary site to inner ear (C301).
Endolymphatic sac tumors are rare non-metastasizing adenocarcinomas that originate in the endolymphatic sac of the inner ear (C301). They are slow growing and widely invade, and in later stages often destroy, the petrous bone. The WHO Classification assigns ICD-O-3 code 8140/3.
MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion.
How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side?
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases.
Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007.
Radiation Therapy--Breast: If hospital records indicate that a mammocyte intracavitary radiation therapy device was placed in the breast, but there is no follow-up documentation of radiation actually being given, should we code radiation 2 (implants) or 8 (recommended, unknown if given)?
Assign code 8 [recommended, unknown if administered]. Check this case periodically, and others coded 8. Update if further information becomes available.
Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion.
The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be "suspicious for malignancy." The microscopic description states that the "lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia." Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a "suspicious" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.
For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.
CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant tumor presenting as a confluent lesion over right parietal, posterior frontal and thalamic regions?
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 CS extension code 40 [Tumor crosses the midline; Tumor involves contralateral hemisphere; Tumor involves corpus callosum (including splenium)]
The thalamus is located between the corpus callosum and the cerebellum and brain stem. A supratentorial tumor extending to the thalamus involves the corpus callosum (extension code 40) but has not yet reached the cerebellum or brain stem. Code 40 applies, but code 50 or any higher code is not applicable in this case.
Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.
A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.
Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)
When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.
The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."
The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.
An official website of the United States government
Home