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: 09/11/2025 08:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20021121 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries are reportable in a patient treated with a bilateral nephrectomy that revealed multiple tumors within each kidney and the histology in both the left and the right kidney was "renal cell carcinoma, indeterminate type: multiple histologically identical tumors" and the clinical discharge diagnosis was "bilateral renal cell carcinoma, probably surgically cured"? See discussion. The SEER manual states "If only one histologic type is reported and if both sides of a paired site are involved within two months of diagnosis, a determination must be made as to whether the patient has one or two independent primaries." Frequently, the only statement we have is that "bilateral organs are involved." Additional guidelines for determining number of primaries would be helpful.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Report this case as two primaries, left and right kidneys. According to our pathologist consultant, "The description sounds like bilateral multiple primaries. Multicentricity in the same kidney occurs in about 4% of all cases, and bilaterality in 0.5 to 3% (Atlas of Tumor Pathology, Tumors of the Kidney, Bladder, and Related Urinary Structures)."

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
20021047 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Do we code "random bladder biopsies" as an excisional biopsy (27) or as no cancer directed surgery (00) even if the only involvement mentioned on the pathology reports is "focal carcinoma in situ"? Code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 00 [None; no surgery of primary site] when only random biopsy procedures are performed on the bladder. 2002
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
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 2002
20020057 Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: What code is used to represent the histology "radial growth phase: melanoma, superficial spreading type; vertical growth phase: epithelioid type"? See discussion. Can the "growth phase" be used to code histology? If so, would the histology be epithelioid cell melanoma (8771/3)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8771/3 [epithelioid cell melanoma]. The "growth phase" information in this case describes the horizontal spread and the "invasive" or vertical growth through the layers of skin.

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
20021056

Histology (Pre-2007)/Terminology: Are "pattern", "architecture", and "architectural pattern" terms that indicate a majority of tumor?

For tumors diagnosed 2004 to 2006:

The terminology "Architectural pattern: ____________," when used in the final pathology diagnosis, indicates a subtype that can be coded. This type of format in a pathology report is based on a College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol. Disregard "pattern" and "architecture" when not used in accordance with the CAP protocol. See www.cap.org for cancer protocols.

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
20020031 Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that a disease is not a new primary, but a pathologist or clinician states that it is a new primary, do we use the physician information or the table?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:If the physician clearly states that this is a new primary, submit it as a new primary. Otherwise, use the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table.

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
20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

 2002