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: 12/29/2025 19:38 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081017 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion. The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be "suspicious for malignancy." The microscopic description states that the "lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia." Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a "suspicious" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2008
20081002 Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.

Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.

Could the same apply to the spleen?

 Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow. 2008
20081124

CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is CS Extension coded for a malignant meningioma that demonstrates extension into adjacent brain tissue?

For malignant brain tumors, code 60 represents extension into the meninges. Would code 60 be the correct code for extension from a malignant meningioma into brain tissue?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Assign CS extension code 60 for malignant meningioma with extension to adjacent brain tissue.

According to the I&R, this section of CS was taken directly from SEER Summary Staging, since AJCC does not have a staging system for these tumors.

 2008
20081110

MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

 2008
20081066 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How should these fields be coded when path shows a 1.2 cm infiltrating carcinoma with lobular features and several foci of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [7 foci described as multifocal], 1 large focus, and numerous foci of LCIS and CIS with lobular and ductal features? Should we count the foci or separate tumor nodules, ignore them, or code unknown values for these fields? See Discussion.

Scenario: 10/17/07: Right axilla soft tissue bx - infiltrating mammary ca with lobular features arising within apparent breast tissue present within axilla. Tumor size 1.2 cm. 11/3/07: Right breast, reexcision lumpectomy - Several foci of infiltrating lobular CA. (2) foci & (5) foci within specimen (multifocal). (1) large focus also present. No lymphovascular invasion identified. Numerous foci LCIS. Pleomorphic LCIS & CIS with lobular and ductal features. Margins free of invasion however margins diffusely involved with LCIS.

When do you count foci or separate tumor nodules, when do you ignore them, and when do you code unknown values for these fields? Coding instruction 3b states, "When the tumor is multifocal or multicentric and the foci of tumor are not measured, code as 99." Instruction 4b states, "Use code 01 when there is a single tumor with separate foci of tumor." Finally, instruction 6b states, "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as multifocal or multicentric and the number of tumors is not given," which seems to imply that if we know the number of tumors, we would code that number.

Multiplicity Counter: Use instruction 4b. Since there is one measured tumor and the foci were not measured, code the multiplicity counter 01 [One tumor only].

Type of Multiple Tumors: Code Type of multiple tumors 00 [Single tumor].

 2008
20081023 Histology: Must every word in the ICD-O-3 code definition appear in the diagnosis in order to assign that ICD-O-3 code? See Discussion. Is the diagnosis "Acute myeloid leukemia, M2" coded to Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation, FAB M2, NOS, (9874/3) or to Acute myeloid leukemia, NOS, (9861/3)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The general instructions for assigning histology codes are to code as precisely as possible. Acute myeloid leukemia with maturation is the definition of the FAB M2 category. A pathologist does not need to provide every word in the term associated with an ICD-O code; pathologists don't always talk that way. AML M2 is a very specific diagnosis and should be coded to 9874/3.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

2008
20081070

CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: How are the following lymph node regions/chains coded in the Collaborative Stage schema for ovary?

1. pericolonic

2. pelvic, NOS

3. mesenteric, NOS

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Revised 7-17-09

Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 for involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, NOS.

Code involvement of pericolonic nodes or mesenteric nodes, NOS in CS lymph nodes.

 2008
20081067 CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion. CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.

 2008
20081048 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Ovary: How are renal lymph nodes coded for ovary primaries?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx. Renal lymph nodes are not listed as regional lymph nodes for ovary; therefore, code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx.

 2008
20081071 CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.

There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?

Examples:

  • "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"

  • "2 cm invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS present"

  • "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm. DCIS present"

    • This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.

    If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.

    		 2008