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: 01/11/2026 19:59 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071087 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion. Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

There are two primaries in this case.

Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.

Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.

 2007
20071124 Multiplicity Counter-Breast: The general instructions say to ignore separate microscopic foci when determining when to use the single tumor or multiple tumor modules. Do these instructions apply if sizes are given for the foci? See Discussion. For instance, would a 1.2 cm breast tumor with 3 scattered microscopic foci ranging from 2-4 mm be treated as multiple tumors (4), or as a single tumor? If the microscopic foci are measured and listed as part of the diagnosis, they should be counted as multiple tumors. 2007
20071064

Reportability--Breast: Is a final path diagnosis of "phyllodes tumor, borderline (malignant, low grade)" reportable if the comment states "Features favor the diagnosis of a borderline phyllodes tumor (or also called malignant phyllodes tumor of low grade)"?

No, borderline phyllodes tumors (PT) are not reportable. The ICD-O-3 code is 9020/1. According to the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, borderline PT's are also called low grade malignant PT's.

 2007
20071103 MP/H rules/Histology--Breast: How many primaries and what histologies are coded for a left breast when a bi-lumpectomy path reveals one tumor with a microscopic focus of mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive DCIS and a second .9 cm mucinous adenocarcinoma with extensive DCIS, and the subsequent mastectomy reveals foci of residual DCIS and Paget's disease of the nipple?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

There are two primaries. Primary 1: The two tumors described on the pathology report from the lumpectomy are a single primary using rule M13. Primary 2: Disregard the foci of residual DCIS. Paget disease of the nipple is a separate primary using rule M12.

Primary 1: invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma and extensive ductal carcinoma in situ: Code the histology as 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] using rule H27.

Primary 2: Paget disease of nipple: Code the histology as 8540/3 [Paget disease] using rule H14.

 2007
20071010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: While cases of "acinar adenocarcinoma" of the prostate are required to be abstracted with the histology code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] for cases diagnosed 1/1/07 or later, can 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/07? See Discussion. The SEER Multiple Primary and Histology manual, effective with 2007 forward diagnosis dates, indicates that this histology should be coded to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Does this contradict ICD-O-3? Can acinar adenocarcinoma be coded for other primary sites?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate as 8140/3.

Prior to diagnosis year 2007, code 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] may be used for prostate cases and for acinar adenocarcinoma of other sites, such as pancreas.

 2007
20071075 Flag: For cases diagnosed prior to 2001, how is the ICD-O-3 Conversion Flag set if the ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 histology and behavior fields are both directly coded, as registrars in this region are instructed to do when submitting late cases, and as a result no conversion is necessary? Is it to 0 [Morphology (Morph--Type&Behav ICD-O-3 originally coded in ICD-O-3)] or Blank [Not converted]?

Assign code 3 [converted with review].

In your scenario above, ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3 are being independently coded which should yield the same result as converting the case and then reviewing it.

Otherwise, if there is an ICD-O-3 code which differs from the ICD-O-3 code based on the conversion criteria, it will trigger an edit.

 2007
20071098 Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors/CS Tumor Size--Lung: How are these fields to be coded when work-up of a malignancy spans a couple of months and reveals developing nodules? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT on 4-26-07 reveals 2.2 cm mass in lingula, left lung, consistent with lung malignancy. Biopsy on 5-18-07 shows non-small cell carcinoma. PET scan on 6-6-07 shows left upper lobe mass consistent with known non-small cell lung carcinoma. Second developing mass increasing in prominence since 4-07 in periphery of left upper lobe, approximately 3.6 cm which may represent intrapulmonary mets or second primary neoplasm. At least 3 additional intrapulmonary nodules have developed since 4-07, two in the left upper lobe and one in the right upper lobe, suspicious for mets.

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.Multiplicity Counter/Date of Multiple Tumors

Apply the multiple primary rules first and record the number of tumors determined to be a single primary in Multiplicity Counter. Record the corresponding date in Date of Multiple Tumors. These data items may be updated once if future tumors are determined to be the same primary as the initial diagnosis.

CS Tumor Size

Include information gathered through

  • completion of surgery(ies) in first course of treatment OR

  • all information available within four months of the date of diagnosis in the absence of disease progression

    • WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

    Metastasis known to have developed after the diagnosis was established should be excluded.

    		 2007
    		20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

    Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

    Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

    Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

    Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

    FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

    What primary site code do we use?

    Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

    Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

    Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

    Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

    Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

    		 2006
    		20061078 Histology (Pre-2007): How is "adenocarcinoma, diffuse type, with signet ring features" coded?

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Histology coding Rule 7 is the only rule that applies to this diagnosis. Assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.

    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.

    		 2006
    		20061141 Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion.

    Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.

    Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:

    Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.

    Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.

    Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.

    COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future.

    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.

    		 2006