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: 10/26/2025 11:48 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021061 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Mycosis Fungoides/Cutaneous T cell Lymphoma: Physicians often use the terms cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and mycosis fungoides interchangeably and yet the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that these 2 diagnoses represent separate primaries. Do these cases represent one primary? If so, what histologic type should they be coded to?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The patient does not have two different malignancies. Code the Histology field to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides], the specific type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Mycosis fungoides is one of several types of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Physicians often refer to mycosis fungoides by the "umbrella term" cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

The table indicates that the broad category of "T/NK-cell NHL" (which includes CTCL) and mycosis fungoides are presumably separate primaries because several entities are included in that broad category. In the specific case cited above, one entity (CTCL) within the broad category (T/NK-cell NHL) and mycosis fungoides are not separate primaries.

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
20021063 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: What code is used to represent this field when a path report from a lymph node biopsy or dissection describes lymph node "portions" or "fragments"? See discussion.

1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?)

2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?)

3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The total number of lymph nodes examined is recorded in EOD-Num of Reg LN Examined. If the number of actual lymph nodes represented by the "fragments" or "portions" cannot be determined, assign code 96, 97, or 98 as appropriate.

1) Based on the terminology "four portions of lymph node (singular)" code to 01 despite "dissection" terminology.

2) Code to 97 based on "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" terminology and procedure identified as dissection.

3) Code to 97 based on statement of "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" for biopsy plus dissection.

 2002
20021118 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: Should the term "Pre-T" be added to code 5 [T-cell] in the ICD-O-3 Table 22, 6th Digit Code for Immunophenotype Designation for Lymphoma and Leukemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 5 [T-cell] in the 6th digit of the ICD-O-3 morphology field when the terms "pre-T cell" or "T-precursor" are used. However, this is not an official change to ICD-O-3.

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
20021117 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: Is the prostatic urethra a new primary for a case with a history of recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer that was subsequently diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the prostatic urethra and had a subsequent clinical diagnosis of "refractory bladder carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If the histology of the bladder primary is "transitional cell carcinoma" or "papillary transitional cell carcinoma," do not code the prostatic urethra as a new primary. This is probably a case of intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the original tumor, rather than separate primaries. The clinical diagnosis supports this view.

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
20021176 Histology (Pre-2007)/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent histology for a case with a biopsy specimen that reveals "infiltrating ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ, comedo subtype, non-extensive" in one quadrant of the breast and a mastectomy specimen with "invasive pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with lobular carcinoma in situ" in another quadrant of the breast? Paget disease is identified in the nipple section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8522/3 [infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma]. We are choosing the ductal and lobular combination over the Paget disease and lobular combination because it is more important for analysis purposes.

Be careful in using combination codes to code separate tumors in different locations of the same breast as a single primary. Currently there are only three combination codes for the breast that allow for this situation, 8522 [duct and lobular], 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct] and 8543 [Paget disease and intraductal]. Other histologic type differences that occur as separate tumors in different parts of the same breast are coded as multiple primaries.

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
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 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
20021142 Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. 2002
20020012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma"? See discussion. Is the histology coded to the combination code of 8522/3 (ductal and lobular) or to the invasive component 8520/3 (lobular)?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Assuming ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma are present in a single tumor, code 8520/3 [Infiltrating lobular carcinoma, NOS].

Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, the single tumor invasive and in situ carcinoma module, start and stop at rule H9 and code the invasive histology.

 2002
20021091

Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are the terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" non-reportable to SEER? See discussion.

Our understanding from SEER about how to classify these types of clinical impressions for the 2001 and later reportable blood diseases is as follows: If we cannot prove that it is malignant, then we should be conservative and exclude the case for reporting to SEER.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The terms "thrombocytosis, NOS" and "thrombocythemia, NOS" are not reportable to SEER.

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