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: 03/02/2026 08:54 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20100009 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Bladder: Is a new primary accessioned for a 2009 diagnosis of transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder when the patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer NOS diagnosed? See Discussion.

A patient has a history of invasive bladder cancer diagnosed several years ago in another state. In 2009, the patient was admitted and found to have a positive biopsy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Is this a new primary because the histology of the previous bladder cancer is unknown? When the histology of a previously diagnosed bladder cancer is unknown, should we assume the previous tumor was urothelial carcinoma?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M6. The 2009 diagnosis is not a new primary. Transitional cell carcinomas account for more than 90% of bladder cancers. If the patient actually had a rare small cell, squamous cell, or adenocarcinoma of the bladder in the past, it is highly likely it would be mentioned in the medical record. 2010
20100085 Primary site/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are these field coded when a biopsy of a substernal mass and the pericardium show T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia, the CT scan showed mediastinal and hilar adenopathy and no bone marrow biopsy was done?

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

Code the histology to 9837/3 [T lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma].

To determine the primary site for leukemia/lymphoma histologies, first go to Module 4. Per Rule PH8, code the primary site to the site of origin when lymph nodes, tissue or organs are involved. To determine a more specific histology, go to Module 7, rules for coding primary site for lymphomas. Per Rule PH20, code the lymph node region when multiple lymph node chains within the same region are involved. Mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes are intrathoracic lymph nodes. The substernal mass is also intrathoracic and is presumed to be a lymph node mass which involved the pericardium. For this case, code the primary site to C771 [Intrathoracic lymph nodes].

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
20100063 Primary Site-Lung: Can you use a lung subsite code for a histologically confirmed lung primary when a CT scan indicates a sized mass located in one lobe of the lung as well as "too numerous to count nodules" through one or both lungs? See Discussion. For example, chest CT shows "1.6 cm RUL suspicious mass and too numerous to count nodules throughout both lungs." Core biopsy of mass in the RUL compatible with adenocarcinoma. For lung primaries with one large mass and numerous nodules, code the primary site to the subsite where the large mass is located. For your example, code the primary site to C341 [upper lobe of lung]. Note: This answer does NOT mean that the other nodules are primary or metastatic cancer. 2010
20100014 Reportability: Are there criteria other than a pathologist or clinician's statement that a registrar can use to determine reportability of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST)? See Discussion.

Per SINQ 20091021 and 20021151, GIST cases are not reportable unless they are stated to be malignant. A pathologist or clinician must confirm the diagnosis of cancer. There are cases that are not stated to be malignant in the pathology report or confirmed as such by a clinician; however, these cases do have information that for other primary sites would typically be taken into consideration when determining reportability. The final diagnosis on the pathology report for all 16 cases is "GIST." The additional comment(s) for each of the 16 different cases is reported below. Are any of the following cases reportable?

1) Pathology report indicates that the bulk of the tumor is submucosal. It extends through the muscularis propria and abuts the serosa.

2) Pathology report states tumor extends to serosal surface of transverse colon, but not into muscularis propria. CD 117 and CD 34 are positive.

3) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades through the gastric wall to the serosal surface.

4) Pathology report indicates that tumor invades pericolic fat tissue.

5) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate omental caking.

6) No further information in pathology report, however, scans indicate hepatic metastases. Hepatic metastases are not biopsied.

7) Tumor stated to be unresectable and extends into pancreas. Chemotherapy given.

8) Pathology report states tumor is low to intermediate grade and involves serosal (visceral peritoneum).

9) Tumor size is 17.5 cm. Pathology report states "malignant risk".

10) Pathology report states tumor "into muscularis propria" or tumor "involves muscularis propria" or "infiltrates into muscularis propria".

11) Pathology report states, "high malignant potential; omentum inv by tumor." It is not stated in path report or final diagnosis to be malignant GIST.

12) Pathology report states that tumor arises from wall of small bowel and extends into thin serosal surface.

13) Pathology report states minimal invasion of lamina propria; does not penetrate muscularis propria.

14) Pathology report states, "high mitotic activity >10/50 HPF; high risk for aggressive behavior; moderate malignant potential."

15) Pathology report states tumor size is >5 cm. Intermediate risk for aggressive behavior; CD117+ KIT exon 11+.

16) Pathology report states "high risk of malignancy."

 For GIST to be reportable, the final diagnosis on the pathology report must definitively state that the GIST is malignant, or invasive, or in situ. Case 6 is the only exception. It would be reportable assuming the scan actually states "hepatic metastases." Based only on the information provided, none of the other examples are reportable. The type of extension and/or invasion mentioned in the other examples are not sufficient to confirm malignancy. Borderline neoplasms can extend and invade, but do not metastasize. Only malignant neoplasms metastasize. 2010
20100049

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a lymph node biopsy reveals "malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and follicular T-cell lymphoma," the bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement, and the oncologist states this patient has "peripheral T-cell lymphoma"? See Discussion.

CT scan showed retroperitoneal and inguinal adenopathy. Right inguinal lymph node biopsy revealed "malignant lymphoma, peripheral T-cell type, with some features of angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma and follicular t-cell lymphoma." Flow cytometry studies showed no evidence of B-cell lymphoma and atypical CD3+/CD10+/CD7-/CD4+/CD56+ T cells are detected (19%). The bone marrow biopsy was negative for involvement. Patient was staged as Stage II Peripheral T-Cell lymphoma by the oncologist and started chemotherapy.

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

Code the oncologist's clinical diagnosis of peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

The definition for this neoplasm is "A large group of lymphomas which we collectively refer to as peripheral T-cell lymphomas with the optional addition of "unspecified" to emphasize that these cases do not belong to any better defined entities. Attempts to distinguish between them on morphological basis have met with poor reproducibility."

Per the Abstractor Notes in the Heme DB: Patients present with peripheral LN involvement. The diagnosis of PTCL, NOS is made ONLY when other specific entities have been explored.

This fits your case; attempts to find a more specific disease (flow cytometry; BM biopsy) were negative and gave no further information that could be used to assign a more specific classification.

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
20100047

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "myelodysplasia" a reportable disease?

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

The diagnosis of "myelodysplasia" is not reportable.

Myelodysplasia covers a group of disorders that result in the inability to produce enough healthy mature blood cells. Those disorders include: anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, MDS, refractory anemia, refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation, refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia. Follow-back to the physician is necessary to determine whether or not a particular case represents a malignancy.

"Myelodysplasia" 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.

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
20100072 Histology/Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma in situ of the gallbladder reportable for 2010? See Discussion. Coding the histology to 9690 [Follicular lymphoma] with a behavior of 2 [in situ] causes many edits including SEER and CS edits to fail. According to the chief of pathology, this is a recently identified pathologic entity.

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

Currently, lymphoma in situ is not reportable. It is true that this is a recently identified pathologic entity. Our experts say that there is still some controversy to be ironed out regarding the criteria for identifying an in situ lymphoma. Their recommendation was to wait until clear guidelines had been established for the pathologists before we start collection of in situ lymphomas. We anticipate collecting these entities in the future.

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
20100010

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a patient is diagnosed with serous cystadenocarcinoma [8441] of the right ovary and clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] of the left ovary? See Discussion.

Patient had bilateral ovarian tumors. The right ovary had serous cystadenocarcinoma and left ovary had clear cell adenocarcinoma. The pathology COMMENT section stated, "Based on the histologic differences of the tumors within each ovary, feel these represent two distinct separate primaries. Lymph node metastases are clearly serous ca." The physician staged the right ovary as T2a N1 M0 and left ovary as T1c N0 M0. Do we accession one primary per rule M7 [Bilateral epithelial tumors (8000-8799) of the ovary within 60 days are a single primary]?

What is intention of Rule M7? If the histology in each ovary is different but within the range (8000-8799), is that supposed to be accessioned as one primary? Or is the intention of Rule M7 that tumors in both ovaries must have the SAME histology within that histology range to be a single primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule M8 and abstract this case as multiple primaries.

Rule M7 does not apply when each ovary has a distinctly different histology, even when both histologies are with the specified code range. This clarification will be added to the next version of the rules.

 2010