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: 12/24/2025 16:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100035 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Colon: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with two colon carcinomas in different segments of colon when there is no documentation that either tumor arose in a polyp, there is no statement indicating the presence of adenomatous polyposis coli and the resected pathology specimen indicates the presence of over 200 polyps? See Discussion.

The first MP/H rule that applies for this case is M4 [tumors in different segments of the colon]. Following rule M4, the case would be counted as two primaries and the histology would be coded per Rule H11. As these are multiple primaries, Rule H17 [Code 8220 (adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyposis coli) when there are > 100 polyps identified in the specimen] would never apply, because H17 applies to multiple tumors abstracted as a single primary. However, Rule H17 seems to fit this case. Should Rule M3 be expanded to include a statement about > 100 polyps so these cases are not accessioned as multiple primaries?

Example: Total colectomy: 1) Distal tumor: - ulcerating moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 3.2 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades through the muscularis propria into the subserosa (pt3). 2) Proximal tumor: exophytic moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma, 2.9 cm in greatest dimension. Tumor invades submucosa (pt1). Multiple tubular adenomas present throughout the colon, approximate count greater than 200.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule M3 for this case and abstract as a single primary. The case information makes it clear that this is adenomatous polyposis coli. Clarification will be added to rule M3 in the next revision of the rules. 2010
20130083 Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if an FNA reveals high grade B-cell lymphoma, compatible with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the treating physician states this is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

The FNA showed high grade B-cell lymphoma, morphologically compatible with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Special studies state: Tumor cells are positive for Vimentin, CD45, and CD20, focally weakly positive for CD43; negative for Myeloperoxidase, CD99, AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, S100, CD3, cyclin D1, CD34, CD5 and TTF1. The cellular findings and immunophenotype are compatible with large B-cell lymphoma.

The treating physician refers to this disease process and is treating the patient for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Should the histology be coded as B-cell lymphoma, NOS (9591/3) because both the FNA and the immunophenotyping use ambiguous terminology? Does the physician reference to the disease process as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Stage II-AE impact the histology used?

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

Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] because the physician states this is a DLBCL and is treating the patient accordingly. Although the pathology report was only compatible with DLBCL, there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis that confirmed a diagnosis of DLBCL. In addition, the patient was treated for DLBCL.

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.

2013
20081075 Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: SEER Program Manual instructions state, "Portugese, Brazilians and Filipinos are not Spanish; Code non-Spanish (code 0)." How is that determined? Is that based SOLELY on birthplace? See Discussion.

The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.

  • Birthplace Portugal; text states Spanish, south American or European Spanish

  • Birthplace Brazil, last name is on Spanish surname list; pt is married female. Text states "Hispanic female, NOS"

  • Birthplace Brazil or Portugal, text states patient is "Mexican", last name is on Spanish surname list

    • Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.

    Spanish Surname or Origin Scenarios

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 1 [Mexican (includes Chicano)]

    		• 2008
    		20210026

    Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion.

    The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma).

    Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered.

    Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility.

    Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary?

    Abstract two primaries and assign

    Primary 1: C772, 9699/3

    Primary 2: C162, 9699/3

    Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology.

    Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3).

    		 2021
    		20000452 Other Therapy: What code is used to represent "gene" therapy? See discussion.

    The following form of gene therapy has been described as treatment for malignant brain tumors.

    Patients undergo surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible. After surgery, the patients are infused with a virus that has been genetically altered so that it is not infectious and so that it contains a gene from the herpes simplex virus. The herpes gene is sensitive to a drug called ganciclovir. Once inside the brain, the genetically altered virus infects any remaining tumor cells. When this occurs, the herpes gene is established inside the cancer cells. After the virus infects the cancer cells, the patients are given ganciclovir. This drug would kill both the virus and the brain tumor cells.

    		 Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy field to 2 [Other experimental cancer-directed therapy (not included elsewhere)]. 2000
    		20170077

    First Course Treatment: Should the definition in the 2016 SEER Coding Manual be revised for first course of treatment following disease progression for patients who complete the initial first course treatment plan without alteration but had one or more treatment modalities given after disease progression was identified? See Discussion.

    The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

    SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

    For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

    The example cited above will not be included in the 2018 edition of the SEER manual. Removing this example will improve the consistency in recording first course of treatment for cases diagnosed 2018 and later.

    		 2017
    		20200007

    Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is simultaneously diagnosed with systemic mastocytosis and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML-0) on a single bone marrow biopsy? See Discussion.

    The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasms Database (Heme DB) definition for systemic mastocytosis with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN, 9741/3) states SM-AHN is a variant of systemic mastocytosis that arises with a myeloid disease of non-mast cell lineage (e.g., MDS, MPN, etc.) and that,

    However, SINQ 20130172 conflicts with the Heme DB stating the systemic mastocytosis and the associated hematological neoplasm are a single primary coded to a single histology (9741/3) per Rule M2.

    Abstract a single primary when the diagnosis is systemic mastocytosis with an associated clonal hematogoical non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (9741/3). However, if the patient has a previous history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia, abstract the SM-AHNMD as a second primary as stated in the Heme DB.

    SINQ 20130172 represents a single primary as there is no mention of a prior history of myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloproliferative neoplasm, myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm or acute leukemia.

    		 2020
    		20130181 Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should Rule M4 or the Heme DB be used to determine whether diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the large intestine and peripheral T-cell lymphoma of the bone marrow represents one or two primaries? See Discussion.

    The Heme DB identifies these as new primaries:

    10/12/12 Large intestine, biopsy: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

    10/12/12 Bone marrow biopsy: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

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

    Per Rule M15, accession two primaries. According to Rule M15, use the multiple primaries calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. Per the calculator, this scenario represents two primaries.

    Assuming the only area of involvement is the large intestine, code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma] and per Rule PH24 code the primary site to C189 [colon, NOS]. According to PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ.

    Rule PH26 applies to the second primary. Assuming the only area of involvement is the bone marrow, code the histology to 9702/3 [peripheral T-cell lymphoma] and code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. According to PH26, one is to code the primary site to bone marrow (C421) when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow.

    Rule M4 does not apply for this case. Rule M4 applied when you have two or more types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the same anatomic location. That is not the case in this scenario.

    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.

    		2013
    		20120015

    Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How does one determine and code a clinical diagnosis for the diagnostic confirmation in patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

    The Heme DB originally stated the Definitive Diagnostic Method is coded to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] while an updated version stated it can coded as a clinical diagnosis or it can be based on the results of a bone marrow biopsy or a genetic test. The Abstractor Note section specifies this is a diagnosis of exclusion. According to a recent Web-based training seminar, the JAK-2 diagnosis would be coded 5 [positive laboratory test/marker study]. Doesn't the Definitive Diagnostic Method of a clinical diagnosis/diagnosis of exclusion mean that the diagnostic confirmation of essential thrombocythemia will always be coded as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]? Many people use code 3 for positive bone marrow biopsy and genetics (JAK-2), but the bone marrow is usually reported as only borderline or is stated to be abnormal for a person's age.

     

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

    Code the diagnostic confirmation to 8 [clinical diagnosis only] in this case.

    Per the Heme DB, JAK-2 is only positive in about 50% of essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients. In addition, a positive JAK-2 test does not identify the type of myeloproliferative disease (MPN) the patient has, only the presence or absence of the JAK-2 mutation.

    The WHO guidelines for diagnosing ET are: elevated platelet count over months and the elimination of other causes for an elevated platelet count (such as polycythemia vera (PV), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), idiopathic myelofibrosis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)); the absence of Philadelphia chromosome, BCR/ABL fusion gene; and del(5q), t(3;3)(q21;26),inv(3)(q21q26)).

    Subsequently, the physician rules out any underlying causes of thrombocytosis such as an inflammation or infection, other neoplasms, and prior splenectomy.

    Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of exclusion. In other words, all other causes for the elevated platelet count have been excluded. The physician assembles the information from the blood counts, bone marrow and JAK-2 testing along with the information that excludes all other diseases and makes a clinical diagnosis of 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.

    		2012
    		20180043

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Breast: Can the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol be used to determine whether in situ tumor is present for the purpose of determining which H Rule applies in the example presented? See Discussion.

    The Histology Coding Instructions give priority to the Final Diagnosis over the CAP protocol. However, when pathology reports are formatted using the CAP protocol, the presence of in situ carcinoma is generally only mentioned in the CAP protocol. Can the presence of in situ tumor mentioned only in the CAP protocol be used to apply rule H7 (Single Tumor: Invasive and In Situ Components Module)? Or are the rules in the Single Tumor: Invasive Only module used?

    Example: Final diagnosis is invasive ductal carcinoma. CAP protocol mentions,

    Apply Rule H12 of the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast Cancer, released April 2019. Remember the protocol is a checklist only and should not be used to code histology unless it is the only document available.

    		 2018