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: 09/21/2025 06:03 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091036 CS Mets at DX/CS Extension--Ovary: Is carcinomatosis always captured in the CS Mets field? Can the term carcinomatosis be used to describe peritoneal implants as well? See Discussion.

1/18/06 CT guided biopsy of abdominal mass & ant peritoneum nodule: Extensive carcinomatosis affecting the paracolic gutters, liver surface & pelvis. 6 cm tumor mass was visibly engulfing the small bowel & tube; poorly differentiated adenoca, mullerian derived, shows attributes of clear cell carcinoma, high grade (FIGO III), 2.5 cm size, does not involve fallopian tube. R&L abdominal wall & mesentery, mets adenoca.

5/31/06: tumor debulking with right salpingo-oophorectomy. Final DX: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, clear cell type, right ovary (FIGO III), stage IV per MD.

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.In the case of ovarian cancer, the term carcinomatosis may refer to peritoneal implants, especially when the implants are numerous. It does not refer to distant metastases in this context.

This issue has been forwarded to the CS version 2 committee.

 2009
20091050 Date of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How is this field coded when a second breast tumor is found at mastectomy two months after the original breast cancer was diagnosed, but during initial workup and treatment? See Discussion. Breast cancer was diagnosed on core biopsy on 02-27-07. It was not known that the breast was harboring 2 tumors until mastectomy was done on 4-01-07. Both tumors are counted as one primary. Code "Date of Multiple Tumors" field to the date of the mastectomy. That is the date that multiple tumors were discovered. 2009
20091030 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion. Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.

For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.

 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
20091051 MP/H Rules/HistologyCorpus Uteri: How should histology be coded for a "carcinosarcoma with high grade sarcomatous component within a polyp, with greater component of endometrioid carcinoma and foci papillary serous carcinoma within polyp"? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] according to rule H17. Rule H12 does not apply since the final diagnosis is not "adenocarcinoma." 2009
20091016 CS Extension--Pancreas: How do you code this field for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of portal and splenic veins? See Discussion. The splenic artery/vein is only mentioned in the body and tail scheme; no mention is made of this site in the pancreatic head scheme.

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 CS extension code 54 [major blood vessels]. The portal vein is listed under code 54 for head of pancreas. The splenic vein branches from the portal vein.

 2009
20091093

Race--How and when is Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, to be used? See Discussion.

For example, if race is recorded as unknown on the facesheet of a hardcopy medical record or in the race field of an electronic medical record, how should race be coded for the following descriptions found in the history and physical or consultation reports submitted by clinicians?

1) Patient is Czechoslovakian

2) Patient is born in Czechoslovakia

3) Patient is Ethiopian

4) Patient is born in Ethiopia

5) Patient is Japanese

6) Patient is born in Japan

7) Patient is Brazilian

8) Patient is born in Brazil

Would you code these cases any differently if these descriptions were actually used in the race fields in the medical record or on a death certificate?

Code the patient's stated race when possible. Refer to Appendix D, Race and Nationality Descriptions from the 2000 Census and Bureau of Vital Statistics, for guidance.

Use the lists in Appendix D when race is not stated but other information is provided in the medical record. The cases you provide are good examples of the use of Appendix D. They would be coded the same if the descriptions were used in the medical record or death certificate race fields.

 2009
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

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."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

 2009
20091010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What histology is coded when a final diagnosis on a lumpectomy specimen states "adenocarcinoma" but the regional lymph nodes show "poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation"? See Discussion.

3/23 left breast mass bx: infiltrating lobular carcinoma.

6/22 left breast lumpectomy: infiltrating adenocarcinoma; sentinel lymph nodes with metastatic poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring differentiation. Axillary resection with poorly differentiated metastasis in 8/9 nodes. The path micro states: tissue consists of sections of breast tissue having an infiltrating ca which in some areas infiltrates as small duct-like structures, and in other areas as small gland-like structures. In addition, there are foci in which the cells infiltrate in a single file fashion. In a few areas, cells having a signet ring appearance similar to those seen in the lymph nodes are encountered. In other areas, the signet ring appearance is not prominent. Areas of ductal or lobular ca in situ are not identified (the lymph node resection specimen shows 'signet ring appearance in some areas but no ductlike or tubular structures observed')

The comment on the lumpectomy path states: 'This is an unusual tumor in that it has histologic characteristics in varying areas, which would be consistent with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, infiltrating lobular carcinoma, tubular carcinoma or signet ring cell carcinoma. The metastatic material (8/9 total axillary lymph nodes) is most consistent with the poorly differentiated signet ring type portion of the tumor undergoing metastasis.'

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Code the histology 8140 [Adenocarcinoma, NOS] using Breast rule H14.

Code the histology from the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the most representative specimen (the lumpectomy in this case). Do not code histology from the microscopic description. Code the histology from the primary site whenever available, not the metastatic site.

Comments on pathology reports can be used to code histology. However, in this case the final diagnosis is more definitive than the comments. The comment provides several choices and none of these appear in the final diagnosis; an indication that the pathologist was not able to clearly identify a more specific type in this case.

 2009