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: 02/27/2026 14:25 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110094

Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Is a "nipple sparing mastectomy" coded to 30 [subcutaneous mastectomy] or 40 [total (simple) mastectomy] if the nipple/areolar complex was not removed but the pathology specimen indicates some breast skin was removed? See Discussion.

In the past, the SEER Manual indicated that code 30 [subcutaneous mastectomies], which captured nipple-sparing mastectomies, would rarely be used because it was not typically performed as treatment for a malignancy. This note was removed from the 2010 SEER Manual, Appendix C. Code 30 which now states, "A subcutaneous mastectomy is the removal of breast tissue without the nipple and areolar complex or overlying skin." More "nipple-sparing mastectomies" are now being performed at certain facilities.

Should the Surgery of Primary Site field be coded to 30 when a nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction is performed, even if there is skin removal? Or, does the skin removal indicate that this is not a subcutaneous mastectomy, and therefore code 43 [Total (simple) mastectomy with reconstruction, NOS] applies?

Code Surgery of Primary Site to 30 [Subcutaneous mastectomy] for this case.

Assign code 30 when the nipple and areolar complex are NOT removed. Assign code 40 (or higher) when the nipple and areolar complex ARE removed.

2011
20110107 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these fields coded for a precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia involving the bone marrow and peripheral blood (per pathology) with a clinically noted large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy? See Discussion. The patient had a large mediastinal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy, however, no biopsy was performed of either area nor was there a specific statement indicating involvement. The bone marrow biopsy showed 100% cellular marrow with involvement by precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The peripheral blood also showed precursor T lymphoblastic leukemia. The discharge summary and office notes state the diagnosis as T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to 9837/3 [adult T cell leukemia/lymphoma] and the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes, multiple regions]. Per Rule PH8, code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph node(s) or lymph node region(s), tissue(s) or organs are involved. A statement of "mediastinal mass" and lymphadenopathy for lymphoma primaries is equivalent to lymph node involvement. To identify the more specific primary site, you need to move to Rule PH21 that indicates you are to code the primary site as multiple lymph node regions, NOS [C778] when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20110073 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Sarcoma: Does a prior clinical diagnosis of a metastatic deposit for a previously diagnosed sarcoma have priority if the diagnosis on a subsequent resection (18 months later) indicates it is also a sarcoma but does not state it represents metastasis from the original sarcoma primary? See Discussion.

1/28/08 Patient was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma in the right gluteus muscle. Metastatic tumors were found in a vertebral body and in the lung. Chemotherapy was started.

4/22/08 PET scan done to evaluate response to chemo. The primary tumor had increased in size. New mass in the left thigh that was highly suspicious for metastasis found. (The left thigh tumor was not accessioned at that time as it was described as a metastatic tumor.)

7/3/09 Left thigh tumor was resected and path revealed spindle cell sarcoma. There was no mention that it represented metastasis.

Does the left thigh tumor represent a new primary per rule M12? Or does the previous clinical description of the left thigh tumor representing metastasis have priority?

this is a single primary per Rule M1. According to our expert pathologist, "if multiple solid tissue tumors are present (sarcomas), then almost always there is one primary and the rest are metastases. There are infrequent occasions of multifocal liposarcoma or osteosarcoma occurring, but the patient would be treated as a patient with metastatic disease."

The steps used to arrive at this answer are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a soft tissue primary, use one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text) under the Other Sites MP rules to determine the number of primaries because soft tissue primaries do not have site specific rules.

Go to the UNKNOWN IF SINGLE OR MULTIPLE TUMORS module, Rule M1.

Rule M1 states, "It is not possible to determine if there is a single tumor or multiple tumors, opt for a single tumor and abstract a single primary." Given the information from the expert pathologist, this case should be reported as a single primary applying this rule.

2011
20110072 Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?

Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.

Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.

2011
20110155 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient shows evidence of "MDS as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" 18 years after a diagnosis of "thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia that progressed to probable myelofibrosis"? See Discussion

Per consultation: an 83 year old patient started on hydroxurea 18 years ago following a diagnosis of thrombocytosis and probable polycythemia. It appears the polycythemia progressed to probable myelofibrosis. The possibility of an MDS needs to be considered.

Problem list: Polycythemia with probable progression to myelofibrosis or MDS.

Bone marrow biopsy two weeks later shows some progression of dysmegakaryocytopoiesis. Patient has evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera.

On follow-up visit six weeks later: Continue to manage patient with hydroxyurea.

An additional six months later: Diagnosis is polycythemia with thrombocytosis.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9920/3 [therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome].

The reportable diagnoses must first be separated from the non-reportable diagnoses mentioned in the consult. Thrombocytosis (NOS), polycythemia (NOS), and myelofibrosis (NOS) are not reportable terms. To verify this, look up each term in the Heme DB. No database matches list the preferred name or the alternative names as any of these NOS terms.

The reportable diagnoses are all from the post-bone marrow biopsy consult, "evidence of MDS, as well as essential thrombocytosis and JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera." The subsequent notes in the consult again only refer to this as non-reportable polycythemia (NOS) or thrombocytosis (NOS). Keep in mind that this patient has been undergoing treatment with chemotherapy (hydroxyurea) for many years for polycythemia (NOS); the patient was diagnosed with polycythemia, "about 18 years ago."

According to the Subject Matter Experts, as MDS progresses, it may manifest as several different subtypes, this is a part of the disease process and abstracting each subtype would result in over-reporting this disease. This patient has a complicated history. The consult information does not adequately document whether this patient's initial diagnosis of "polycythemia" was primary polycythemia (reportable) or a secondary polycythemia (not reportable). If the patient was initially diagnosed with a primary polycythemia 18 years ago the current diagnosis of "JAK2 mutation positive polycythemia vera" would not be a new primary. The manifestation of ET may be due to the progression of MDS. In either case, this patient does have a therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome which is the same primary as both PV and ET.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20110138

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

 2011
20110118

Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.

08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.

SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported?

This case is reportable.

It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy.

 2011
20110037 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site is coded for the 2010 cervical lymph node excision diagnosis of composite lymphoma that followed a 2002 history of follicular lymphoma involving lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm? See Discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with a composite lymphoma of a cervical lymph node 8 years after diagnosis of follicular lymphoma that involved lymph nodes and organs on both sides of the diaphragm. The patient's follicular lymphoma was diagnosed in 2002.

In 2010 an excisional biopsy of a left neck lymph node showed classical Hodgkin lymphoma, nodular sclerosis type, grade 2 (predominant component) associated with (minor component) low grade follicular lymphoma (composite lymphoma).

Should the primary site for the 2010 primary be coded to C770 [lymph nodes of head, face & neck] or C778 [multiple lymph node regions]?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the primary site to C770 [lymph nodes of the head and neck]. Per Rule PH19, code the primary site to the specific lymph node region when only one lymph node or one lymph node region is involved. No involvement other than the cervical lymph nodes is mentioned for the disease in 2010.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20110105 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported for a bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "lymphoproliferative disorder, small cell lymphocytic lymphoma/small cell lymphocytic leukemia consistent with marginal zone lymphoma"? According to our hematopoietic/lymphoid neoplasm physician expert, abstract one primary with the histology code 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma]. The pathologist is using the expression "small lymphocytic lymphoma" in a descriptive manner (marginal zone lymphoma is comprised of small lymphocytes) rather than in a "diagnostic" manner. 2011
20110109

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma, plasmacytoma and plasma cell leukemia?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This is accessioned as one primary and the histology is coded to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].

To arrive at this answer, it is important to first try to determine how many different unique neoplasms there are to correctly identify the number of primaries to report. Per the Heme DB, plasma cell leukemia is an obsolete term. The current term and histology code for this diagnosis is 9732/3 [plasma cell myeloma]. Plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are synonyms per the Heme DB. Therefore, per Rule M2 a single primary exists when there is a single histology. That takes care of the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma and plasma cell leukemia, but not the plasmacytoma.

In checking the Heme DB, the terms plasma cell myeloma and multiple myeloma are not synonyms for plasmacytoma. Therefore, we are left to determine whether the multiple myeloma/plasma cell myeloma vs the plasmacytoma represents one or two primaries.

Under the Transformation section of the Heme DB, it indicates that plasmacytoma (a chronic disease process) transforms to multiple myeloma (an acute disease process). Per Rule M9, abstract a single primary and code the acute histology when both a chronic and an acute neoplasm are diagnosed simultaneously. The histology is coded to the acute neoplasm when there is no information on the biopsy regarding which is the "later" histology. This update will be added to the Heme Manual.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 2011