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: 05/03/2026 03:48 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20091066 Multiplicity Counter--Lung: How is this field coded when there is no evidence of the primary tumor? See Discussion. Patient presented with large mediastinal mass. CT showed no intraparenchymal lung tumor. Biopsy of mediastinal mass revealed adenocarcinoma consistent with lung primary. Code Multiplicity Counter to code 99 [Unknown]. 2009
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091095 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion. The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states "when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040." The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?

Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.

Note 4 pertains to code 040, not to code 048.

2009
20091124 CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.

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.

Use code "6" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.

 2009
20091097

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted if DLBCL (9680/3) and Mantle Cell Lymphoma (9673/3) occur at the same time in different lymph nodes? How would Sequence be coded if the case is multiple primaries?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:It is important to note for this case that the two different types of NHL occurred in different lymph nodes; one type in one lymph node and the other type in another lymph node.

Use the fold-out table to determine single vs multiple primaries. According to the table, 9673/3 and 9680/3 would be two primaries no matter which of these was "first."

Assign the lower sequence number to the primary with the worse prognosis when two primaries are diagnosed simultaneously. Base the prognosis decision on the primary site, histology, and extent of disease for each of the primaries. If there is no difference in prognosis, the sequence numbers may be assigned in any order.

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
20091083 Grade/Cell indicator--Lymphoma: How is Grade/Cell indicator coded for anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion. The SPCM states cell indicator codes take precedence over grade/differentiation codes for lymphoma and leukemia cases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Because there is no cell indicator information, code 9 [cell type not determined] in the grade/cell indicator field. Do not code grade for lymphoma. For lymphoma and leukemia this field is the cell indicator.

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
20091088 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma with the sarcomatous component of high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation"? See Discussion. Right breast simple mastectomy, path: 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm metaplastic carcinoma with; the sarcomatous component is high grade sarcoma with focal areas of osteoid formation. The epithelial component is predominantly grade 2 DCIS. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8575 [Metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. Metaplastic carcinomas often include mixtures of epithelial carcinoma with sarcoma, for example. 2009
20091059 CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?

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.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).

 2009
20091103 Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Is a prostate biopsy that states "highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy" reportable? Do not report. "Not diagnostic of" means that while the pathologist is seeing some features that resemble cancer, there are not enough features to feel comfortable making an unquestionable diagnosis. Watch for another biopsy of the patient in the next 3-6 months. The statement "not diagnostic of" overrules the "highly suspicious" statement. 2009