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: 11/11/2025 17:57 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051120 CS Eval--Colon: Should 1 [No surgical resection done...] or 3 [Surgical resection performed...] be used to correctly reflect this field when a surgical observation is "adherent to duodenum" but the extension per the pathology is stated to be to the "subserosal tissue"? See Discussion. 7/2/04 Op Findings 5 cm mass in mid transverse colon involving also the right colon; mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. 7/2/04 Path: Rt & Transverse Colon: 6x5 cm mass, micro: MD Adenoca with invasion of subserosal tissue; margins neg. 17/17 colic LNs negative.

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.For the case described above, code extension as 46 [Adherent to other organ...no microscopic tumor found in adhesion]. Code CS TS/Ext eval as 3 [Surgical resection performed...].

Surgery was performed for this case. The fact that the adherence to the duodenum was proven not to be tumor involvement should be coded as 3 in CS TS/Ext Eval. By using eval code 3, the case will map to a pathologic T indicating that the patient had resective surgery. Eval code 1 would map to a clinical T, incorrect for this case.

 2005
20051046

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.

Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."

Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".

Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.

Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.

Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the 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.

 2005
20051142

Reportability--Skin: Is a non-small cell carcinoma [8046/3] of the skin SEER reportable?

Non-genital skin primaries with a histology code equal to or less than 8110 are not reportable to SEER; therefore, the combination of C44_ and 8046/3 is not reportable.

 2005
20061104 Reportability/Behavior--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable" coded to 9975 with a behavior code of 3 as indicated in the WHO blue book on "Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues" or is it not abstracted because it has a behavior code of 1 which means the case is not reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code MDS/MPD U to 9975/3 [Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable]. Change the behavior code to /3 according to ICD-O-3 Rule F. The case is reportable.

The WHO book is more recent and gives a specific code for this new hybrid category of the WHO/REAL classification.

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.

 2006
20061103 CS Extension--Bladder: How is extension coded if the bladder tumor involves the right ureter per cystoscopy but the TURB specimen demonstrates muscularis propria invasion?

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.

Code CS extension based on the area of deepest invasion. According to the TNM Supplement, which was used as a resource in the development of CS, "Direct invasion of the distal ureter is classified by the depth of greatest invasion in any of the involved organs." Record the greatest extent of disease using both clinical and operative/pathologic assessment.

 2006
20061106 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.

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.

 2006
20061032 Behavior--Head & Neck: Should the SEER IF_Morph_3 edit be modified because it does not allow a behavior code 2 with histology 8941 [carcinoma in a pleomorphic adenoma] for a parotid primary?

Code the behavior as 2 and over-ride the edit. The edit is there to flag unusual combinations. Once you have verified that the behavior is coded correctly, over-ride the edit.

The surgeon stage of T2 is based on size of tumor, the TIS is based on behavior. Code according to pathologically confirmed TIS.

 2006
20061093 Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.

Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.

 Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false. 2006
20061144 Date of Diagnosis/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are these fields coded if a 3/17/03 bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of "malignant proliferative disorder" is subsequently confirmed to be a "low grade lymphoma" per a bone marrow biopsy in early 2006? See Discussion.

3-17-03: Bone marrow biopsy from rt iliac crest: Hypercellular marrow (90%) with extensive involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder (see description). Micro: The bone marrow is diffusely (>90%) involved by a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder. This consists of small lymphocytes,histiocytes, and large atypical cells with prominent nucleoli.

12-22-05 Extensive bone marrow involvement by lymphoproliferative disorder, bone biopsy from femur.

1-27-06 Hem/Onc Physician Note:

following pt for a lymphoproliferative disorder. ...bone marrow biopsy 2003, suggestive of, but not truly diagnostic, a lymphoproliferative disorder. Therefore, I elected not to do anything, but just follow her.

3-23-06 Hem/Onc Note:

pt with a history of an apparently low-grade lymphoma involving the marrow, as well as, I believe, the liver and recently pathologically diagnosed as a T-cell-rich B-cell lymphoma. ...followed in the past by Dr. ___ and has never actually had any treatment for this lymphoma, although it is documented even three years ago by bone marrow biopsy.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the diagnosis date to 3/17/03. The histology code is 9970/3 [Malignant myeloproliferative disorder]. The bone marrow biopsy confirms a "Malignant" lymphoproliferative disorder. Apply ICD-O-3 rule F and assign /3 to histology code 9970.

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.

 2006
20061117 Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: Is the code 8740/3 [malignant melanoma in a junctional nevus] to be used when the pathologic diagnosis is "malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8720/3 [malignant melanoma, NOS] for malignant melanoma arising in a compound nevus. A compound nevus is not the same as a junctional nevus.

ICD-O-3 does not have a specific code for melanoma in a compound nevus. Assign the code for the type of melanoma specified; for example, NOS, superficial spreading, etc.

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.

 2006