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: 02/25/2026 13:23 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100019 Histology--Ovary: How is histology coded for an ovarian mucinous neoplasm of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) that shows extensive intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion? See Discussion. At surgery a 25 cm left ovarian mass is found adherent to the anterior abdominal wall. The final diagnosis per the pathology report is, "Mucinous neoplasm (26 cm) of low malignant potential (borderline mucinous cystadenoma) with extensive intraepithelial ca and focal microinvasion. Right ovary, fallopian tubes, uterus, omentum, biopsies of diaphragm, 28 para-aortic and pelvic LNS and peritoneal fluid are all negative for malignancy." Histology code 8470/3 [mucinous cystadenocarcinoma] is the best choice in this case. There is a mucinous cystadenoma [8470/0] with intraepithelial carcinoma and focal microinvasion. 8470/3 comes as close as possible to the description of the tumor. 2010
20100111 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is this field coded for a "myeloma, plasmablastic variant"?

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

Code histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma]. The plasmablastic subtype/variant does have a prognostic indication, but the disease is still coded as multiple myeloma.

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.

2010
20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

2010
20100096 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a 9/30/10 biopsy diagnoses follicular lymphoma, grade 1 and the patient is subsequently diagnosed on a 10/11/10 biopsy with large B-cell lymphoma which is stated to be a transformation of the prior lymphoma?

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

Per Rule M11, this case is to be accessioned as two primaries; follicular lymphoma, grade 1 [9695/3] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [9680/3]. The case represents a chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma, grade) and an acute neoplasm (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) diagnosed within 21 days of one another and there is documentation of two biopsies, one confirming the chronic disease and the other confirming the acute disease.

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.

2010
20100079 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does the fact that the Hematopoietic Database states the ICD-O-3 code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] mean that the ICD-O-3 books should be updated to indicate that as of 2010 the code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] is no longer applicable?

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

Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS [9970/1] is not a reportable neoplasm. There are also new codes that define lymphoproliferative disorder/disease more specifically. If you do a "smart search" and enter only the word "lymphoproliferative" into the Heme DB, you will get a listing of all of the reportable and non-reportable terms. That enables you to look at your record and compare the words in the Heme DB to those in the record you are reviewing.

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.

2010
20100110

Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.

Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.

NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466

2010
20100083 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a longstanding history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma followed by a 2010 diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma"? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of follicular cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma dating back to the 1990s. The patient was treated with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, radiation and rituximab. The patient had no evidence of recurrence. In April 2010 a lesion appeared on the side of the scalp above the left ear with a diagnosis of "B-cell lymphoma with prominent large cell component, compatible with primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma." The oncology diagnosis is "primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma."

Would the Multiple Primaries Calculator be used in this case?

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

Accession two primaries per Rule M15. Per the Multiple Primaries Calculator, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma [9597/3] following a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3] is a new primary.

While the pathologic diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma "compatible with" primary cutaneous follicle center cell lymphoma and ambiguous terms cannot be used to identify a more specific histology, the physician confirmed the more specific diagnosis without ambiguous terminology. Therefore, this diagnosis should be coded.

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.

2010
20100082 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a case be accessioned as MDS, NOS when a consult uses ambiguous terminology (e.g., probable MDS) to describe the disease process and the bone marrow does not confirm the consult diagnosis? See Discussion. A patient is stated to have "probable MDS" by a hematology oncologist consult during an admission. A bone marrow biopsy was also performed during this admission, the final diagnosis on the pathology report is, "anemia and thrombocytopenia." The patient was not seen again by a hematology oncologist; however the patient's cardiology states, "BM biopsy was not clear whether this is MDS or another etiology."

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

This is not reportable. In effect, the original diagnosis was a rule/out MDS diagnosis. The bone marrow biopsy performed as part of the initial workup, proved that rule/out diagnosis was not valid. The subsequent statement confirms the diagnosis is not clear.

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.

2010
20100032 First course treatment--Prostate: Is Degarelix coded as hormonal treatment for prostate cancer? Code the administration of Degarelix in the "Hormone Therapy" field. Assign code 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy]. This drug will be added to the next update of SEER*Rx. 2010
20100046

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a clinical remission sufficient to change the tumor status to "disease free" for a patient on long-term chemotherapy for a diagnosis of either a chronic hematologic disease, such as CML, or a myeloproliferative disorder, such as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion.

For some patients with chronic hematologic diseases, the disease/recurrence status could change frequently as chemotherapy is started and stopped over an extended period of time. Should the tumor status for these cases always be "not disease free"? When the physician documents the patient is in clinical remission, does their status change to "NED or disease free?" There seems to be a lot of variation across the US in how registrars are coding this field. Clarification would be appreciated.

The term "disease free" is not used in a standard fashion for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms.

Code the cancer status to free of disease when the physician indicates NED. For hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms, a physician's statement of NED, disease-free, clinical remission or no evidence of disease at this time, should be recorded with cancer status to disease free. The term "disease free" or NED means that there is no clinical evidence of disease.

2010