Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20031200 | Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER? | For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3]. According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031138 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. | Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. | 2003 |
|
|
20031060 | Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Because histology 9895/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia] was recognized as a distinct entity by WHO with too few cases of the subtypes [with or without prior MDS] to warrant separate histology codes for each, should the wording for the non-bold definitions in ICD-O-3 be changed to the following in both the alpha and numeric sections? See Description.
AML with multilineage dysplasia and prior MDS AML with multilineage dysplasia and without prior MDS |
How do we code histology for the following case of AML? Patient was admitted for profound anemia and thrombocytopenia with no immediate explanation. Path final diagnosis on bone marrow biopsy: acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Per micro description: findings are characteristic of AML that appears to be arising within the context of a myelodysplastic syndrome. The discharge diagnosis (2 days after bone marrow biopsy) read: myelodysplastic syndrome with profound anemia and thrombocytopenia. Do we code the histology per the final path diagnosis (code 9861/3)? Using the current version of ICD-O-3, we could arrive at a histology code of 9895/3 based on the micro findings of AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome. However, per the above-mentioned SEER e-mail, we would not because there was no mention of multilineage dysplasia. |
For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:To assign code 9895, it is important that the diagnosis includes "multilineage dysplasia." Use code 9895 when the diagnosis is with or without prior (not concurrent) myelodysplastic syndrome AND multilineage dysplasia. Acute myeloid leukemia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome and without multilineage dysplasia is coded 9861 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. Although the wording of 9895 cannot be changed, coders can make a note that the synonyms are intended to include: -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia with prior myelodysplastic syndrome and -Acute myeloid leukemia WITH multilineage dysplasia without prior myelodysplastic syndrome. The histology code for the case example is 9861/3 [Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS]. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031117 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Are simultaneous tumors of the rectosigmoid junction and rectum counted as two primaries? See Description. |
On the same day in 1998, a patient was found to have a T3 adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction and an in situ adenocarcinoma in a villotubular adenoma in the lower rectum. These would be the same histology if they are in the same site. Are C199 and C209 the same site? They are listed in ICD-O-2 (pg. xxxvii) and in ICD-O-3 (pg. 36), but they are not listed in the SEER Program Manual on page 9 as the same site. Is this one primary or two? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Abstract two primaries for the example above, according to the main rule on page 7 in the SPCM. Rectosigmoid junction (C19) and rectum (C20) are in different 3-digit ICD-O-3 topography code categories. Rectosigmoid junction and rectum are not included in the exceptions to the main rule and, therefore, do not appear on page 9 of the SPCM. The table on page 9 is not identical to the table in ICD-O-3. Two site combinations are listed in ICD-O-3, but not in the SEER table: C19 (rectosigmoid junction) and C20 (rectum); C40 (bones of limbs) and C41 (other bones). Abstract multiple tumors in the rectosigmoid junction and rectum as separate primaries. Abstract multiple tumors in the bones of the limbs and other bones as separate primaries. 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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031174 | Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description. | Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis? Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later? Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions. Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor. Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031002 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Cervix: Is 8384/3 [adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] a specific histology type that must be stated or does it apply to any adenocarcinoma arising in the endocervical? Should the ICD-O-3 histology code of 8384/3 [Adenocarcinoma, endocervical type] be used for final diagnoses of "adenocarcinoma of the endocervix" or "adenocarcinoma of the cervix"? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Histology code 8384 is for adenocarcinoma of endocervical type. This specific type (endocervical) must be part of the diagnosis in order to assign code 8384. This histology code is not to be used for Adenocarcinoma, NOS of the endocervix or cervix. Adenocarcinoma of endocervical type can be diagnosed in other tissues and if so it will be stated as endocervical type. Adenoca of the endocervix would be coded to plain Adenoca.
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. |
2003 | |
|
|
20031037 | Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery 2003+/Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined--Hematopoietic/Brain/Lymph Nodes/Ill-defined/Unknown: Are codes 9 [Unknown; not stated] and 99 [Unknown; not stated] used respectively for these data items for the mentioned primary sites? | For cases diagnosed Jan 2003 and later: The Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field is blank for 2003+ cases. Scope of reg lymph node surgery Brain, Central nervous system - 9 Hematopoietic, reticuloendothelial, immunoproliferative & myeloproliferative disease - 9 Unknown & ill-defined primary - 9 Lymphomas - 9 |
2003 | |
|
|
20031067 | Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?" See Description. | A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET." Neither are compatible with site. | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva). Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.
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. |
2003 |
|
|
20031172 | Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should hormonal therapy be coded as administered, when the physician states "Tamioxifen was given as a prescription?" | Yes, based on the prescription for Tamoxifen, code Hormone Therapy as administered. | 2003 | |
|
|
20031076 | EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: Is this field coded to the size of a hypoechoic mass identified on a TRUS when there is no tumor size from the prostatectomy specimen? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Ultrasound measurement of a malignancy can be used to code EOD-Size of Primary Tumor. Information on tumor size taken from imaging/radiographic techniques has low priority, just above physical examination. | 2003 |
An official website of the United States government
