SEER Inquiry System - Search

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.

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.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary according to the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies (the tri-fold heme table) using the pathology report diagnosis from the facility where the procedure was performed (Hospital A). Since Hospital A disagreed with the slide review and did not amend their diagnosis based on the slide review, do not use the slide review diagnosis in this case.

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.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

Code both scenarios /3 [malignant (invasive)]. Information regarding behavior is not limited to the final diagnosis or the CAP protocol. See page 84 in the 2007 SEER manual:

Code the behavior as malignant /3 if any portion of the primary tumor is invasive no matter how limited; i.e. microinvasion.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

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 term "omental caking" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.

When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign 8077/2 [Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade III] for VIN III diagnoses, regardless of the type. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours (page 319), "VIN is predominately of the warty or basaloid types...."

Use the multiple tumors module to determine the histology code for VIN. Rule H21 applies.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8401/3 [apocrine adenocarcinoma] according to rule H12. Apocrine is a type of duct carcinoma, see table 1. Code 8401 should be listed in Rule H12. Apocrine should be removed from table 3.

These corrections will appear in the revised version of the rules.