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: 12/31/2025 19:07 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120014 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is histology coded if the pathology report final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia, consistent with multiple myeloma" when no further work-up is performed because the patient either refuses additional testing or dies?

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

Code the histology to 9732/3 [multiple myeloma].

Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of multiple myeloma on the pathology report.

The instruction "Do not code histology based on ambiguous terminology" is intended to be used when there is a reportable and reportable stated in the diagnosis. Ambiguous terminology cannot be used to report the more specific diagnosis in cases of Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

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
20120086 Primary site: What is the single primary site used for a patient with multiple tumors in the duodenum and jejunum? See discussion. The patient has a tumor in the jejunum and another tumor in the duodenum. Both tumors have the same histology. This disease process is a single primary per Other Sites Rule M18. Is the primary site coded to the more invasive tumor? If the tumors are equally invasive, is the primary site coded to C179?

Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS] for multiple invasive tumors of the small intestine accessioned as a single primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Step 1: Go to the Primary Site subsection located in Section IV of the 2012 SEER Manual titled "Description of This Neoplasm."

Step 2: Apply instruction 5. "Code the last digit of the primary site code to '9' for single primaries, when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined." Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS].

When multiple tumors arising in different subsites are accessioned as a single primary, the primary site is coded to the NOS code, in this case small intestine, NOS [C179]. The level of invasion does not determine the primary site, unless one or more of the tumors is in situ and another is invasive.

 2012
20120019 Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How are these fields coded for breast cases diagnosed 2011 and later when the patient has a simple mastectomy with removal of seven sentinel lymph nodes? See Discussion. Per SINQ 20091076, the correct codes would be 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only] when the patient has any number of sentinel nodes removed, as long as they are designated as sentinel nodes. Under the mastectomy codes in the 2011 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Breast Surgery Codes, the SEER Note states that code 41 [simple mastectomy] includes the removal of one to three axillary lymph nodes. A simple mastectomy with four or more axillary lymph nodes is coded to 51. Does the lymph node count for code 51 include both sentinel and axillary lymph nodes? Or does code 51 refer to strictly the count of axillary lymph nodes, separate from the count of sentinel lymph node(s) biopsied?

First, make sure that the seven lymph nodes removed were actually designated to be sentinel nodes and not a combination of sentinel nodes and other regional nodes. Code sentinel nodes only when the nodes are stated to be sentinel nodes or when the surgical procedure includes the injection of dye to identify sentinel nodes.

If all seven nodes removed are sentinel nodes, follow the instructions in SINQ 20091076 and assign codes 41 [simple mastectomy] and 2 [sentinel lymph node biopsy only].

The SEER Note does not pertain to nodes designated as sentinel nodes.

2012
20120056 First course treatment--Corpus Uteri: Should Arimidex be coded as hormone therapy for an endometrioid adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. Per the SEER Manual, endometrial cancers may be treated with progesterone which is coded as hormone therapy for these primaries. As endometrioid adenocarcinomas are hormonally-dependent carcinomas, should an aromatase inhibitor or anti-estrogen agent also be coded as hormone therapy?

Arimidex has not been approved to treat endometrial cancer. It is not prescribed for pre-menopausal women. Clarify with the physician why the drug was being used. If the physician states Arimidex was given to reduce tumor burden, code as hormone therapy.

See the SEER*Rx interactive database, http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/seerrx/

2012
20120034

Primary site--Brain and CNS: How is the primary site to be coded if a clinician used an MRI to diagnose a left cerebellar venous angioma? See Discussion.

According to the WHO Classification of Brain/CNS Tumors, code 9122/0 (venous angioma) does not appear under tumors of the cerebellum (C716).

Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous angioma arising in the cerebellum is C490.  The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. Venous angioma is a venous abnormality, currently referred to as a developmental venous anomaly (DVA).

2012
20120059 Primary site/Reportability--Breast: Is a "right nipple skin" biopsy that demonstrates squamous cell carcinoma reportable using a primary site of C500? See Discussion. In the 2011 SEER Manual Reportability Examples, example 3, it states a "biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the nipple" is reportable when the subsequent resection shows "no evidence of residual malignancy in the nipple epidermis." However, this example does not specify the biopsy is from the nipple skin and the ICD-O-3 does not list nipple skin as a synonym for code C500.

Because the site is specifically stated to "skin" of nipple [C44.5], this case is not reportable.

If possible, you may wish to confirm the type of biopsy performed. If the biopsy was done by FNA or needle biopsy, the biopsy tissue should contain a full-thickness of skin and subcutaneous breast (nipple) tissue. If that is the case, this tumor would likely be a reportable squamous cell carcinoma of nipple [C50.0]. If, however, this was a punch biopsy it is more likely a non-reportable squamous cell carcinoma of the skin [C44.5].

2012
20120039

Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What primary site and heme rule applies when a PET scan shows bilateral renal masses, hypermetabolic liver lesions and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, a right kidney biopsy was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the bone marrow biopsy was negative? See Discussion.

Patient has a history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). February 2011 abdomen/pelvis x-ray showed development of bilateral renal masses. April 2011 PET scan showed intense areas of hypermetabolic activity corresponding to known bilateral renal masses, new hypermetabolic liver lesions, as well as left upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. All findings are worrisome for malignancy. March 2011 right kidney mass biopsy was positive for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Bone marrow biopsy was negative for lymphoma.

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

Per Rule PH25, code the primary site of the diffuse large B-cell lymphoma to C649 (kidneys) and laterality to 4 (bilateral). Per PH25, code the primary site to the organ when a lymphoma is present in an and that . This patient had involvement of an organ (bilateral kidneys) as well as regional lymph nodes for that organ. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes are regional for the kidney.

The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is an acute transformation of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Because the DLBCL occurred more than 21 days after the CLL, it is a new primary per Rule M10.

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
20120030

MP/H Rules/Histology- -Melanoma: What is the correct histology code if the final diagnosis for an excisional biopsy specimen is reported as "malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type" but the under the "cell type" section in the CAP protocol layout of the pathology report it lists "cell type: epithelioid"? See Discussion.

The MP/H rules do not address the concept of "cell type" for melanomas when the pathologist uses the CAP protocol to report findings and the cell type listed in that section of the report differs from the specific cell type mentioned in the final diagnosis. Does a case have two specific cell types when the final diagnosis and the "cell type" sections of a single pathology report indicate two more specific melanoma histologies?

Pre-2007 SINQ entries indicate the cell type should be coded. However, if it differs from the specific cell type listed in the final diagnosis does it matter? Do the MP/H rules still take the cell type into account?

Code the histology to malignant melanoma, superficial spreading type [8743/3] based on the final diagnosis. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order from Rule H1 to Rule H10. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the more specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type (i.e., superficial spreading) mentioned in the final diagnosis.

The final diagnosis takes precedence over the CAP protocol. The CAP protocol may be used when it provides additional or noncontradictory information, but that does not apply in this case.

 2012
20120017

Reportability: Is a low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm with gastrin expression found in a periportal lymph node reportable if the clinical impression is compatible with a gastrinoma? See Discussion.

SINQ 20110095 states that "low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm/carcinoid tumor with expression of gastrin" is reportable. However, in this case "carcinoid tumor" is not mentioned. Is this case reportable if the expression "carcinoid tumor" is missing in the diagnosis of the pathology report? Also, does the fact that the gastrinoma was found in a lymph node affect reportability?

This is a reportable case. Code the histology as malignant gastrinoma [8153/3].

Gastrinomas are usually malignant. This one is apparently present in a metastatic site (periportal lymph node) which confirms the malignancy.

 2012
20120064

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: If hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis treated with several rounds of chemotherapy is reportable, what is the primary site?

Patient was diagnosed with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis on blood and bone marrow biopsy. This was also referred to in the chart as hemophagocytosis and hemophagocytic syndrome. Hemophagocytic syndrome is listed in the Heme DB as 9724/3. The patient had several rounds of fairly aggressive chemotherapy. Would the correct primary site for histology 9724/3 be C421 [bone marrow], or C779 [lymph nodes, NOS]? See SINQ 20100113.

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

Hemophagocytic syndrome, also known as hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), is not reportable. Per Appendix F, HLH is caused by an over stimulated immune system (infection, etc.). It is a clinical syndrome associated with a variety of underlying conditions. To be reportable, a child's diagnosis must state "fulminant hemophagocytic syndrome" to be reportable (9724/3). This is not the situation in this case.

"Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis" is also listed in Appendix F: Non-Reportable List for Hematopoietic Diseases.

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