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: 04/26/2026 07:09 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051138 Histology/Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndrome synonymous with "therapy related" myelodysplastic syndrome? If so, would "drug induced" myelodysplastic syndome be SEER reportable and coded with the histology 9987/3? Page 44 of the "Abstracting & Coding Guide for the Hematopoiectic Diseases" lists this histology & behavior with the proper EOD code to use but yet on page 36 it states "Do not accession the following diagnoses coded to 285.0 and lists secondary SA as well as drug-induced SA.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

There is considerable difference between therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and drug-induced sideroblastic anemia (SA).

Therapy-related MDS is the result of irreversible damage to the bone marrow caused by certain kinds of myelotoxic drugs used to treat cancer. Examples are Cytoxan and Etoposide. There is usually a 10+ year delay between the first primary and its treatment and the therapy-related MDS. Therapy-related MDS is not reversible and is reportable as a malignancy. Because the drugs were almost always given to treat a malignancy, therapy-related MDS is almost always a second primary.

Drug-induced SA is not reportable as a malignancy. Drug-induced SA is the result of short term effects of certain drugs on the bone marrow. Drug-induced SA is reversible, as the marrow recovers once the drugs are out of the system.

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.

2005
20051067

Reportability--Lung: Is sclerosing hemangioma of the lung with multiple regional lymph nodes metastases reportable?

No, it is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours, sclerosing hemangioma "behaves in a clinically benign fashion...Reported cases with hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement do not have a worse prognosis."

 2005
20051040 Primary Site--Sarcoma: What is the correct topography code for a partial lung lobectomy with pathology diagnosis of "pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation"? See Discussion.

Operative report: palpable 2x2cm mass in the mediastinal surface of the rt middle lobe and the contiguous upper lobe together.

Path comment after partial lung lobectomy: In all likelihood this is a malignant process occurring in smooth muscle changes surrounding vessels within the lung versus an undifferentiated epithelial tumor.

ADDENDUM DX: low grade pulmonary sarcoma with smooth muscle differentiation.

Consultant's report concurs with that of the original pathologist's report of malignant neoplasm compatible with smooth muscle origin.

 This case is unique. Assign topography code C493 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of thorax]. Based on the information provided, this sarcoma has smooth muscle differentiation and originated in the muscle. Code the primary site to muscle. 2005
20051048 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.

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.

 2005
20051127 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is an "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" of the spine reportable? See Discussion.

Example: Pt underwent laminectomy and excision of intradural extramedullary tumor.

Is there a default decision for tumors described as intradural extramedullary tumors, NOS?

For cases diagnosed 2011 and later:

A spinal "intradural extramedullary schwannoma (neurilemoma)" is reportable. This schwannoma originated in the spinal nerve root, C720.

See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup,

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability

2005
20051003 CS Tumor Size/CS Eval--Breast: How are these fields coded when there is a clinical size recorded but the tumor size is not specified on the pathology report associated with a subsequent resection? See Discussion. 4/8/04 excisional biopsy of 1.5 cm palpable mass. Path: gives a specimen size only and states that there is a nodular firm area that correlates with the clustered microcalcification on radiograph. No pathologic tumor size is given. Would the size be coded to the clinical size of 1.5 cm? The patient did have surgery but the only size available is a clinical one. Because the size is clinical, is the CS Eval field coded to 0 [No surgical resection done. Evaluation based on PE...]?

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.

Clinical size can be coded when the patient has had surgery. For the case above, code the tumor size as 015 [1.5 cm] using the clinical information. The CS Tumor Size/Extent Eval field refers to both tumor size and extension. In this case, record the eval field as 0 or 1 (which ever is appropriate). The tumor size sets the T category unless the resection shows skin or chest wall or dermal lymphatic involvement.

 2005
20051080 Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion. CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging?

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.

There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension.

 2005
20051117 CS Tumor Size--Bladder: Is tumor size coded to 080 when the bladder mass is described as "greater than 8 cm in diameter"?

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.Based on the information provided above, code CS tumor size 080 [8 cm]. Code the information that is avaliable. Since size of tumor is not used to stage bladder cancer, an approximation is adequate.

 2005
20051142

Reportability--Skin: Is a non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] of the skin SEER reportable?

Non-genital skin primaries with a histology code equal to or less than 8110 are not reportable to SEER; therefore, the combination of C44_ and 8046/3 is not reportable.

 2005
20051046

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.

Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."

Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".

Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.

Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.

Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.

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.

 2005