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: 11/04/2025 11:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021173 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent a review of slides histology of "in situ squamous cell carcinoma and multiple detached fragments of atypical papillary squamous epithelium; highly suspicious for invasive carcinoma"? See discussion. The original pathologist indicated a final diagnosis of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The slides were sent for review to another facility. The reviewing pathologist rendered the diagnosis stated in the question section.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8070 [squamous cell carcinoma].

The review diagnosis was also squamous cell carcinoma. The expression "atypical papillary squamous epithelium" does not modify the cancer histology.

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
20021092 Histology/Primary Site--CLL/SLL: How should these fields be coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma" [CLL/SLL] diagnosed on a lymph node biopsy that is referred to by the clinician as CLL? See discussion. Does the clinician's reference to this disease as CLL change the SEER rule to code to SLL if the disease arises in a lymph node or solid tissue?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9670/3 [Malignant lymphoma, small lymphocytic, NOS] and the Primary Site field to C77._ [lymph nodes] when CLL/SLL is diagnosed in lymph node or solid tissue, even if the clinician refers to CLL. When CLL/SLL is diagnosed in the blood, code as leukemia.

Refer to clarification #6 on the ICD-O-3 Errata and Clarifications. "...if disease is diagnosed only in the blood or bone marrow, code the primary site to C42.1, bone marrow and assign the leukemia morphology code. If the diagnosis is made on any other tissue (typically lymph nodes, lymphatic structures, breast, and stomach), code to the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology. If the diagnosis is made on both blood or bone marrow and a tissue biopsy, code the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology."

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
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
20021180

Surgery of Primary Site/Other Cancer-Directed Therapy--Head & Neck (Nasal cavity): Should a small fragment of bone removed during a maxillectomy following a turbinectomy for a nasal turbinate primary be "partial or total removal with other organ" for coding this field? See discussion.

Excision of a turbinate mass and partial turbinectomy revealed melanoma of the rt nasal turbinate. A subsequent rt medial maxillectomy was performed and a small fragment of bone was included in the resection and identified in the pathology report. Would the removed bone be "connective or supportive tissue" only for a Surgery of Primary Site code of 40 or is it another organ for a code of 60?

The piece of bone was likely removed to access the maxillary sinus and would not be a separate organ. Use the "All Other Sites" surgery coding schemes to code this primary. For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 40 [Total surgical removal of primary site]. Code the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 2 [Non-primary surgical procedure to other regional sites]. The maxillectomy was not performed in continuity to the turbinectomy and should be coded in this field rather than the Surgery of Primary Site field.

 2002
20021021 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Should we add the missing terms listed in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases to ICD-O-3 because these absent synonyms would not be identified during hematology casefinding? See discussion. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases gives a preferred term for each code followed by a list of synonyms, not all of which are listed in the ICD-O-3. Two examples are: 1) 9962/3 [Essential Thrombocythemia] has 6 synonymous terms listed, but the last three of them are not in ICD-O-3. 2) 9930/3 [Myeloid Sarcoma] has the synonym "extramedullary myeloid tumor" which is not in ICD-O-3.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not add these synonyms to ICD-O-3. The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases lists synonyms for the preferred terms to assist in the classification of these other terms. In the absence of a specific code for the synonym, code to the preferred term. For casefinding, these terms would be grouped in a broader category of hematologic diseases under an ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 code and, therefore, will be identified during casefinding procedures using the disease index.

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
20021070 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase "axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node" or the phrase "satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue"? See discussion. A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled "axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node". The microscopic description for that specimen stated "Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor". The final path dx stated "Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added "If lymph node mets, this is a stage II." Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases. 2002
20021112 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: The subsequent primary table for 2001 and later indicates that 9863/3 [acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)] followed by 9980/3 [refractory anemia (RAEB)] is a new primary, but 9989/3 [myelodysplastic syndrome, NOS (MDS)] is not. Is the case below two primaries? See discussion. Bone marrow bx states: The morphologic blast count of 7% exceeds 5%, traditionally used to define relapse in the setting of acute leukemia. Given the clinical hx that the pt's peripheral blood counts had initially normalized after induction therapy, the recent fall in counts is worrisome for the possibility of early relapse. Alternatively, therapy may have simply reverted the pt's marrow from AML to a precursor myelodysplastic syndrome (such as RAEB given the blast count) from which the AML arose, with the falling counts being progression of the underlying MDS. The identification of significant dysplasia in the bone marrow at the time of diagnosis would tend to support the possibility of an underlying MDS. Clinically, it is unlikely to make a difference whether one regards the present situation as early relapse or progression of an underlying MDS. The final clinical diagnosis is "Myelodysplasia, classified as RAEB."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This case demonstrates a relapse of AML. The original classification of Histology as 9863/3 [AML] is correct. There is no second primary based on the information provided for this 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.

 2002
20021115 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: In coding lymph node involvement for a testicular primary, should we use code 5 (Size not stated) when there is not a pathologic size of the lymph node provided? See discussion. Should Note 1 in the testis EOD be changed to "Metastases in lymph nodes are now measured by the size of the lymph node as stated in pathology report"? The SEER EOD-88, 3rd Edition, states that "when size of regional lymph nodes is required, code from the pathology report."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For testis cases only, "metastasis in lymph nodes" is measured by the size of the lymph node or the lymph node mass. It is acceptable to code the size of this metastasis from a CT scan or other imaging when a pathology specimen is not available for testicular primaries.

 2002
20021028 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: If the tumor arises in the prostatic apex, does that take priority over coding clinical extension based on the stage of cT1c? See discussion. Physician states prostate primary is a cT1c. Pathology states adenocarcinoma, Gleason 3+3, right apex. All other biopsies were negative. Because the primary appears to be in the prostatic apex, do we code 33 or 15 for clinical extension? Which is more important for SEER? Do you want to capture the "apex" information or the "cT1c" information?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 33 [arising in prostatic apex]. Apex information takes priority. The only statement we have is cT1c by the urologist, and we don't know how that stage was determined.

 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