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: 04/22/2026 23:45 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091031 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How is histology coded for a thyroid tumor described as "predominantly papillary carcinoma, tall cell variant, follicular type"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8340 [Papillary carcinoma, follicular variant] according to rule H15 for Other Sites.

"Predominantly" and "type" indicate specific histologies. "Variant" does not. See rule H13. The histology in this case is papillary and follicular. Tall cell variant is ignored.

 2009
20091020 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How do you code histology for a breast tumor when the comment section of the pathology report compares the current resected specimen with a previous needle biopsy? See Discussion. A single tumor is described on the breast needle biopsy as "infiltrating lobular carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ" and on the lumpectomy specimen as "infiltrating duct carcinoma." Per the COMMENT section on the pathology report: "Tumor resection was compared to previous needle biopsy. The appropriate designation is probably a terminal duct/lobular lesion." For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8522 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] according to Breast MP/H rule H16. The comment on the lumpectomy pathology report takes both the lumpectomy information and the biopsy information into consideration. "Probable" is an ambiguous term used to code histology. 2009
20091065

Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a non-Hodgkins lymphoma case with scans that show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules and a large mediastinal mass? See Discussion.

Patient presented with large bulky mediastinal mass. CT showed no pleural effusion. Findings also show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules. Biopsy of mediastinal mass showed malignant B-cell lymphoma of follicle center cell origin. Abdomen /Pelvis CT showed borderline lymph nodes in bifurcation. Clinical diagnosis was probable stage 3 if not 4 lymphoma. Per lymphoma guidelines, if extra-nodal primary site is assigned to the extranodal site if an extra-nodal site and its regional lymph nodes are involved. Would the parenchymal lung nodules be indicative of pulmonary involvement? If so, would primary site be lung? Or, would the parenchymal nodules be stage 4 disease and primary site be assigned to lymph nodes?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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.

Code Primary Site to C779 [Lymph node, NOS]. In this case, there is no statement that lymphoma involves the lung. "Nonspecific parenchymal lung nodules" are not indicative of lymphoma involvement. Consequently, this cannot be assumed to be an extra-nodal lymphoma. Additionally, it is not clear whether or not the "borderline" pelvic lymph nodes are involved. If the physician cannot provide more information, follow instruction 4.e in the SEER manual on page 72.

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.

 2009
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091038 CS Tumor Size--Breast: Do the tumor size instructions in the CS Manual take priority over those in the SEER manual? See Discussion. In regards to priority order of sources to be used in coding size for breast and lung, we are instructed to use the site-specific instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual over the general instructions in the CS Manual (see SINQ 20061109). Thus, physical exam size would be used over an imaging size. I&R question 2389 instructs registrars to use an imaging size over a physical exam size. This inconsistency creates confusion for them. Do the answers given in I&R not take into account the information in the SEER Manual? As a SEER Registry, which rules do we tell our hospitals to use? Are ACoS accredited hospitals required to use I&R over SINQ?

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.

 2009
20091089 Histology--Hematopoietic: How is histology coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia with plasmacytic differentiation"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign histology code 9823/3 [Chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. Plasmacytic differentiation does not indicate a plasma cell or plasmacytic leukemia.

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.

 2009
20091129 Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant? Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9. 2009
20091057 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the term "intermediate risk" be used to code IPI score? See Discussion. Patient has Hodgkin disease. The physician states that the patient has bulky stage IIA intermediate risk disease. Is the term "risk" another way of stating IPI score? If so, how would intermediate risk be coded?

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.Code SSF 3 for lymphoma based on the IPI score stated in the record. Do not attempt to interpret statements or terms in order to assign a code to SSF 3. If no further information is available for this case, code SSF 3 999 [Unknown].

 2009
20091127

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a patient with Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) who presents with meningiomas on the left and right side of the brain and multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord? See Discussion.

We have a patient with NF2 who also has meningiomas diagnosed on the left and right side of the brain as well as multiple meningiomas of the spinal cord. Are the meningiomas all one primary (separate from the NF2): C70.9 and 9530/1?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is four primaries.

Report NF2 because it occurs with reportable neoplasms. Note: Report NF only once per patient.

Per MP/H Benign CNS Rule M4, the meningiomas of the meninges/brain (C70.0) and meninges/CNS (C70.1) are multiple primaries. Code the meningiomas of the spine to the histology to 9530/1 [Multiple meningiomas] (Rule H6) because there are multiple tumors in the spine.

Per Rule M5, the meningiomas of the right and left side of the brain are multiple primaries. Code of each to the histology 9530/0 [Meningioma, NOS] per Rule H2 because they are separate primaries (assuming there is one tumor on each side of the brain).

 2009
20091126 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Vagina: How many primaries should be abstracted for a patient with a complex history of multiple occurrences of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN III) between 2001 and 2008 and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the vagina diagnosed in 2006 and again in 2008? See Discussion. Patient had VAIN III in March of 2001. She had a partial vaginectomy and then continues to have laser surgery in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 for recurrences. In 12/2006 she is diagnosed with SCCA of the vagina with microinvasion (new primary). Then in 2/2008 she has VAIN III again -- new primary according to rule M10 (more than 1 year later). An invasive SCCA of the vagina is again diagnosed in 9/2008. Is this another new primary per rule M15 (invasive after in situ)? Every instance in 2008 is called a recurrence, but we disregard that statement.

There are two primaries according to the information provided.

1. VAIN III March 2001.

2. SCCA of vagina Dec. 2006 (invasive tumor following an in situ

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the MP/H rules apply to new tumors, which means that there has been a disease-free interval at some point. In this case, the patient has never been declared disease-free (NED) using the information provided in the question. The consistent recurrence of VAIN is typical of this disease.

 2009