System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 10/14/2025 18:11 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021162

Chemotherapy: Should radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents (i.e., drugs typically coded as treatment for cancer) be coded as treatment when they are given in combination with radiation therapy with the intention of enhancing that treatment? See discussion.

Per our consultant, these drugs are given at a lower dose than that typically given to treat cancer patients.

Do not code radiosensitizers and radioprotectants as cancer-directed therapy. Drugs typically classified as chemotherapy agents would be "ancillary drugs" for the purpose of coding cancer-directed therapy because the drugs are given at a much lower dosage than that typically given to treat cancer patients. Per Book 8, ancillary drugs are not to be coded as cancer-directed therapy. Radiosensitizers and radioprotectants do not work directly on the cancer and are not coded under any of the systemic therapy fields.

 2002
20021159 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "mucinous carcinoma with Paget disease"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [mucinous carcinoma]. This answer assumes the patient presented with a single tumor. There is no combination code that includes these two entities. According to the rules for Coding Complex Morphologic Diagnoses, it would appear that the case should be coded to 8540 [Paget disease] because it is the higher code. However, this combination of histologies represents an exception to that rule. The prognosis for mucinous carcinoma is worse than the prognosis for Paget disease. As a result, it would be more appropriate to the histology to mucinous 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.

 2002
20021158 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: What is the primary site(s) for a patient who had a lymph node biopsy with the histology of "large B cell lymphoma arising in the setting of low grade B cell lymphoma c/w marginal zone B cell lymphoma with plasmacytic features"? See discussion. This patient also had a bone marrow biopsy that demonstrated "low grade B cell lymphoma." Per the clinician, "Pt with discordant lymphoma. We will be approaching his lymphoma as two different diseases. The large B cell had cleared after chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The low grade lymphoma is incurable."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code as two primaries with each arising in lymph nodes [C77._]. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone B cell lymphoma]. The histology for the second primary is 9680/3 [large B cell lymphoma].

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.

 2002
20021157 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology for a lung biopsy of "non-small cell carcinoma with features of poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma"? See discussion. Non-small cell carcinoma does not appear to be an NOS term in ICD-O-3. The term "with features of" indicates a majority of tumor. Which rule should be used to code histology?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology and the Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/33 [adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated].

The term "non-small cell carcinoma" is used to represent a broad category of epithelial cancers. Non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] is grouped in the ICD-O-3 under "Epithelial Neoplasms, NOS." The term can be used by a pathologist when he rules out the fact that the patient has a small cell cancer by stating that the malignancy is a non-small cell type of cancer. In this case, the type of non-small cell cancer present in the specimen is adenocarcinoma.

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.

 2002
20021156 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What codes are used to represent site and histology for BSO specimen with a diagnosis, "Left and right adnexa: poorly differentiated serous carcinoma. Comment: The carcinoma occurs as multiple nodules within adnexal soft tissues. Direct involvement of ovaries is not seen, supporting an extraovarian origin." See discussion. Per our pathologist consultant, the site should be pelvic peritoneum [C481] and the histology is primary serous papillary carcinoma of peritoneum [8461/3]. Does SEER agree?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site to C481 [Specified parts of peritoneum] and the Histology field to 8461/3 [primary serous papillary carcinoma of peritoneum].

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.

 2002
20021154

Primary Site: What code is used to represent the primary site for a "teratocarcinoma with features of embryonal carcinoma" removed from the thigh muscle in a patient with x-ray negative testicles? See discussion.

The case was reviewed by AFIP and called "extratesticular." Per our pathology consultant, the site should be coded to unknown because it is very doubtful that the tumor was primary in the soft tissue of the thigh. According to him, such tumors don't originate exclusively in the testes, but tend to occur along the central axis such as the mediastinum or retroperitoneum. If an extratesticular tumor arises in either of these areas, the primary site should be code to the mediastinum or the peritoneum rather than to unknown. Lesions primary in the testicle may also undergo maturation with fibrosis and involution. This process often leaves little evidence of the original tumor in the testis.

Code the Primary Site field to C809 [unknown] for this case. The thigh tumor is a metastatic site.

 2002
20021153 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion. Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate. Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade. 2002
20021152 Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?

Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.

Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).

 2002
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. 2002