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: 04/23/2026 08:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081070

CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: How are the following lymph node regions/chains coded in the Collaborative Stage schema for ovary?

1. pericolonic

2. pelvic, NOS

3. mesenteric, NOS

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.Revised 7-17-09

Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 for involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, NOS.

Code involvement of pericolonic nodes or mesenteric nodes, NOS in CS lymph nodes.

 2008
20081073

CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

 2008
20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. 2008
20081080 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion. A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?

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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.

If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:

  • Code CS LN's 80; code SSF 1 & 2 999, code SSF 3-6 000.

  • Code CS LN's 99; code SSF 1-6 999.

    		•  2008
    		20081081 Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. 2008
    		20081083 Multiple primaries--Lymphoma: Is mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma followed by classical Hodgkin lymphoma reportable as one or two primaries? See Discussion. Diagnosed 06/06/2006 with mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, 9679/36. On 05/10/2007, another mediastinal lymph node biopsy done and the diagnosis was recurrent malignant lymphoma, classical Hodgkin's. A Hematopatholgy Consultant states, "it appears likely that the preceding mediastinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the current classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are clonally related and represent different manifestations of the same entity. One might also place this in the spectrum of 'mediastinal gray zone lymphoma' described by Dr. Jaffee and colleagues."

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report this case as two primaries. Report non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by Hodgkin lymphoma as separate primaries.

    According to the Table of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies, mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin disease are "D" - Different disease processes.

    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.

    		 2008
    		20081086 Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion. Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was "positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma." Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign. This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid. 2008
    		20081095 Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: If birthplace is Brazil or Portugal, patient's last name is on the Spanish Surname list, and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity, what is the correct Spanish Ethnicity code: 0 or 7? See Discussion. See also SINQ 20081075.

    Assign code 7 [Spanish surname only] when the last name is on the Spanish Surname list. This includes cases for which the birthplace is Brazil, Portugal or the Philippines and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity.

    The instruction to use code 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic] in the SEER manual on page 51 (#2) applies when the only information available is the birthplace or a statement of "Portuguese," "Brazilian" or "Filipino."

    		 2008
    		20081096 Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity? No, "Alias" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm. 2008
    		20081098 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: How do you use Rule H5 or H6 to code "moderately diff adenoca with mucinous component"?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma]. Rule H6 applies because the final diagnosis is not "mucinous adenocarcinoma" and the percentage of mucinous adenocarcinoma is not stated.

    Rule H13 does not apply because "component" is not a term that indicates a specific histology.

    		2008