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: 05/01/2026 17:10 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061060 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: How are SSF 5 (Gleasons Primary and Secondary Pattern Value) and SSF 6 (Gleasons Score) coded when there is a higher Gleason's pattern in less than 5% of the tumor? See Discussion.

Radical prostatectomy pathology states prostate adenocarcinoma "combined Gleasons score 3+3=6, with a small portion of Gleasons pattern 4 component comprising less than 5% of tumor volume."

The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs refers to "tertiary" Gleasons patterns in addition to the primary and secondary patterns. On prostatectomy, when this tertiary pattern is 4 or 5, WHO recommends that it should be reported in addition to the Gleasons score even when it is less than 5% of the tumor.

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.

Record Gleason's pattern and score from the largest specimen, even if this is a lower number. Ignore the tertiary pattern for now.

This may change when the AJCC 7th Edition is published, as there is much discussion regarding the tertiary patterns and when they should be utilized. If there is a change in AJCC, at that time there will be a change to CS.

 2006
20061075 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: Is a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides followed a year later with a biopsy proven diagnosis of anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma stated to represent a transformation of the previous mycosis fungoides reportable as one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code the histology according to the original diagnosis, mycosis fungoides. The physician states that this one disease process started as mycosis fungoides and progressed into lymphoma. A physician's statement has priority over other sources in determining the number of hematopoietic primaries.

In October 2006, a committee will begin working on multple primaries among hematopoietic diseases. The committee will provide further guidance on dealing with disease transformation and other issues.

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
20061009 CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If there are two ER/PR tests, one positive and one negative, which result should be coded in the SSF fields 1 and 2? See Discussion.

SINQ #20021074 states that for cases up to 2003, if there are differences in ER/PR results, to code the positive findings over the negative findings. Does this hold true for coding SSF1 & SSF2 for breast?

Scenario: 10/19 Breast bx: ER + PR -; No date/specimen: ER/PR -; 12/3 Partial Mast: ER/PR +

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 cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007, according to the CS Steering Committee, record the pathologist's interpretation of the assay value for the most representative tumor specimen. This may require conversation with the pathologist when specimen size is not specified.

 2006
20061120 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Should a TURB be coded to 27 [Excisional biopsy; SEER Note: Code TURB as 27] when there is obvious extravesicular extension demonstrated because the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code an excisional biopsy when there is macroscopic residual disease"? Assign code 27 [excisional biopsy]. The site-specific instructions have priority over the general instructions. According to the instructions for coding surgery of the bladder, use code 27 for TURB. 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
20061123 Reportability--Colon: Is a pathologically confirmed "tubulovillous adenoma with high grade dysplasia" reportable if clinical diagnosis at the time of the subsequent re-biopsy states "follow-up for colon polyps with ca in situ"? See Discussion. SINQ 20000245 states that high grade dysplasia is not synonymous with behavior code 2 (in situ). However, the 2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." A pathologic diagnosis has priority over a clinical diagnosis. According to the pathologist, this case is not reportable. A re-biopsy is not treatment. 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
20061099 CS Extension--Lung: If only a "single" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are "multiple" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement?

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.

No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.

 2006
20061098 CS Extension/CS Mets: For primary sites within the peritoneum (abdominalpelvic walls) such as stomach, colon, does the presence of malignant ascites affect the coding of CS Extension or CS Mets?

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.

The Collaborative Staging system is governed by site-specific coding rules. Refer to each set of site rules rather than looking for a general answer for all sites in peritoneum. In particular, Ovary and Corpus allow malignant ascites to be coded in CS Extension, but not CS Mets at Dx. For each site, both CS Extension and CS Mets at Dx should be checked for the proper field to code malignant ascites.

 2006
20061003 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is Langerhans cell histiocytosis [9751/1] of the meninges [C709] reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes. The criteria for reportable benign/borderline CNS tumors is based on location (site) and behavior (benign/borderline). There is no caveat for histologic type. Therefore, this would be reportable as these tumors have been reported arising from the meninges or choroid plexus.

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