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 12:12 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100015

Type of Multiple Tumors/Multiplicity Counter--Breast. Are the data items "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" and "Multiplicity Counter" related? How should they be coded for breast cases in which there are multiple measured invasive tumors, plus DCIS which is not measured nor stated whether it is separate from the invasive tumors? See Discussion.

For example, path report states only "multifocal invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm and 0.8 cm, and low-grade DCIS." The Multiplicity Counter instructions tell us to ignore/do not count foci that are not measured. Should we interpret this to mean, count only the two invasive foci and ignore the DCIS? Should Type of Multiple Tumors then be coded 30 or 40, because only the invasive tumors are coded in Multiplicity Counter? Code Type of Multiple Tumors 30 [in situ and invasive]. The code in Type of Multiple Tumors may or may not reflect the tumors that were counted in Multiplicity Counter. For this case, it is correct to code 02 in multiplicity counter. 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
20100113 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis reportable?

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

No. This is not a reportable hematologic condition. When you do not find a hematologic or lymphoid condition listed in the Heme DB, it is not reportable. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis is an uncommon hematologic disorder. The patient usually presents with fever, splenomegaly, and jaundice. Laboratory findings are lymphocytosis and histiocytosis. Pathology findings are hemophagocytosis.

Appendix F lists this term as non-reportable.

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
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 2010
20100007 MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: Regarding SINQ #20081044, when would you apply Rule H6 rather than Rule H5 for a cutaneous malignant melanoma given that you normally always have a specific cell type mentioned? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule H6 is used when you do not have a specific cell type other than regressing melanoma, or malignant melanoma, regressing. If you have regressing melanoma with a specific cell type, apply rule H5. 2010
20100037

Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be accessioned for a patient diagnosed with essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 who had a 2010 biopsy consistent with the fibrotic stage for a chronic myeloproliferative disorder that "suggests the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia"? See Discussion.

Patient had a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002 and was treated with Hydroxyurea. In 2010, the patient was admitted with severe bone pain and a diagnosis described as, "The overall features of the biopsy are consistent with a fibrotic stage of a chronic myeloproliferative disorder. The presence of up to 15% CD34+ immature cells seen in the biopsy suggests that the patient is transforming to an acute myeloid leukemia." In addition, cytogenetic studies and molecular testing for JAK2 were ordered. These findings confirmed a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 mutation was not detected. The patient died within 2 weeks. Is this a new primary?

Was this patient diagnosed with AML (which requires 20% or more blasts and this is only 15%)? If this is a new primary, is the histology 9861/3 [AML, NOS] or 9895/3 [AML with myelodysplasia-related changes]? Was the second diagnosis of AML definitively diagnosed?

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

This case is a single primary, essential thrombocythemia [9962/3] in 2002. The 2010 diagnosis is chronic myeloproliferative disorder [9960/3].

According to Rule M15, the Multiple Primaries Calculator is to be used to first determine the number of primaries. Per the calculator, essential thrombocythemia and chronic myeloproliferative disorder are the same primary. (Acute myeloid leukemia is not used as the second histology because it is preceded by a non-reportable ambiguous term, "suggests." "Suggests" is not on the list of reportable ambiguous terms in the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual.

In 2010, this patient was in a late stage of ET. When any of the specific MPN neoplasms such as ET are in the late stage of disease, the characteristics of the specific disease (ET) will no longer be detectable. Accordingly, for this patient the diagnostic testing was positive for MPN, unclassifiable. In this case, do not change the diagnosis from the more specific disease (ET) to the NOS (MPN, unclassifiable).

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
20100090 MP/H Rules/Histology: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of "poorly differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma intermixed with osteoid sarcomatous component, consistent with malignant mixed mullerian tumor with heterologous (osteosarcoma) elements"? Is malignant mixed mullerian tumor synonymous with carcinosarcoma? See Discussion. Given that there is no mixed code for these histologies, can the numerically higher code be used per H17 (malignant mixed mullerian tumor [8950/3]) using the logic of the MP/H rule for other sites? If so, should this histology be coded as 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma] rather than 8950/3 [malignant mixed mullerian tumor]? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code histology to 8980/3 [carcinosarcoma]. Recent literature states that carcinosarcoma is synonymous with mixed mullerian tumor. Mixed mullerian tumor is an obsolete term and should not be used. 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
20100089 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded when lymphoma is initially found in both lymph nodes and bone marrow, the pathology report is unavailable, and the physician only states that both areas are involved? See Discussion. For many consultations and/or class 2 cases, the pathology report is not available to help determine the primary site. Should the primary site be automatically coded to C421 over C77_ when both are involved? The Abstractor Notes state the primary site can be either bone marrow or lymph nodes. The physician states only that both are involved.

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

Because both the bone marrow and LN are involved, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] per Rule PH22. You are to code specific nodes if a specific region is specified; however, if no region is specified, code to lymph node, NOS [C779]). When you are having problems coding primary site, go to Module 7 Primary Site Rules for Lymphomas Only. See Rule PH26. It states that you code the primary site to bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved.

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
20100081 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should a single primary be accessioned with the histology coded 9732/3 [multiple myeloma] when a patient is diagnosed initially with a plasmacytoma on an excision and a single bone marrow biopsy showed only 4% plasma cells, then the subsequent workup led to a clinical diagnosis of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

This patient had a plasmacytoma removed from the sphenoid sinus and was started on Dexamethasone. The patient had a bone marrow biopsy with 4% plasma cells. A statement in the hematology notes read, "it can increase the rate of false negative results with a bone marrow biopsy." The bone marrow biopsy was done 15 days after the surgery for the plasmacytoma.

Workup yielded the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Per a statement in hematology notes, "I found her having 4% blasts, atypical plasma cells in the bone marrow biopsy and also lytic lesions involving the T7 and lucencies involving L4 and L5 vertebral bodies and also the upper sacrum. The PET-CT scan did not show significant metabolic activities in those lesions. The patient had a small amount of Bence-Jones in the urine and also an abnormal kappa to lambda ratio in the serum. The ratio was 12 to 1. The beta 2 microglobulin was 1.4. The albumin in the serum was 3.4. Based on that, the patient has been diagnosed with Durie-Salmon stage III in ISS stage II multiple myeloma."

The abstractor notes for multiple myeloma state that the diagnosis is made when the proportion of plasma cells in the bone marrow is 10% or greater. Should a diagnosis of MM be accessioned and coded when the bone marrow is less than 10% plasma cells, but a clinical diagnosis of MM is made?

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

Accept the physician's diagnosis of multiple myeloma [9732/3]. Code the multiple myeloma as a single primary using rule M8 if there was only ONE positive biopsy. Code as multiple primaries (both the solitary plasmacytoma and multiple myeloma) using Rule M11 if there are TWO positive biopsies, one confirming the chronic neoplasm and the other confirming the acute neoplasm.

Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes: The registrar DOES NOT CODE plasma cell myeloma based on the percentage of plasma cells. There must be a diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma. In addition, a clinical diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma may be made based on amyloidosis with associated renal impairment, anemia and/or hypercalcemia supported by radiologic evidence of multiple lytic bone lesions. he biopsy confirmed plasma cell malignancy (plasmacytoma) and the clinical workup confirmed 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