SEER Inquiry System - Search

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.

For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.

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.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

No. Myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells. Plasma cells are the daughters of B cells. So technically it would be correct to call them B cell, but that is not common usage.

Cell marker (phenotype) should be coded in the Grade, Differentiation field for only leukemias and lymphomas, as classified in the ICD-O-3. In the ICD-O-3, myeloma is listed under Plasma Cell Tumors, not Lymphomas. When a cell marker is coded for a leukemia/lymphoma it should be coded only from pathology and/or cytology reports.

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.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If there is no mention of endometrioid carcinoma in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8500/3 [duct carcinoma]. If "endometrioid carcinoma" is mentioned in either the final diagnosis or in the microscopic description, code the Histology field to 8380/3 [endometrioid carcinoma].

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.

Updated Answer

Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, code the Date of Diagnosis field to the later biopsy date. Note 7 is intended for use in coding the EOD-Extension field, not the Date of Diagnosis field. The earlier scan has a diagnosis of RUL "mass" not a "malignancy" so the fact that there is mediastinal lymphadenopathy mentioned in that scan is not used to help determine date of diagnosis.

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Extension into the aortico-pulmonary window, would be coded in the EOD-Extension field as 70 [mediastinal extension]. If the tumor extends into the paratracheal space, subcarina, or other areas listed under the code 2 in lymph nodes, code the EOD-Extension field to 70 to capture this type of involvement.

Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.

The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.

Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [Extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. There has to be extension to peripancreatic tissue if the mass encompasses the celiac artery.

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.