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: 02/27/2026 14:24 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051013 Reportability/In Situ--Prostate: Was there a time period when PIN III was reportable to SEER? Per the 2004 SEER Manual, page 2, Reportable Diagnoses, Exceptions, 1.b.iii "Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) of the prostate (C619). (Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 1/1/2001 and later.)" 2005
20051112 Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion. On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology.

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.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.

The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines.

 2005
20051035 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Does a case of astrogliosis meet the criteria for gliomatosis cerebri? See Discussion.

Case clinically stated to be a glioma of the brain. Pathology from resection states astrogliosis.

Anderson's Pathology defines astrogliosis as astrocytic proliferations. Gliomatosis cerebri is defined as diffuse neoplastic transformation of poorly differentiated astrocytes over a wide area; predominantly invovles hemispheric white matter.

 The pathologic diagnosis for this case, astrogliosis, is not reportable to SEER. Take the definitive diagnosis for this case from the pathology report from the resection. The pathology report takes precendence over the clinical diagnosis. 2005
20051050 CS Tumor Size--Breast: Is the largest focus or the total area coded for tumor size in a patient presenting with "scattered foci of DCIS, largest focus measuring 0.6cm. DCIS spans a total area of 2.1cm."

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 the size of the largest focus in CS tumor size. Code the tumor size for this case as 006 (6mm or 0.6cm).

 2005
20051133 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How are the number of primaries, histologies and CS extension fields coded for breast tissue that contains separate areas of invasive ductal carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma and Paget disease? See Discussion.

Excisional biopsy of a breast mass: 1.0 cm tumor that was infiltrating ductal carcinoma, high grade, with an associated intraductal component with comedonecrosis.

Pathology report for the mastectomy three weeks later: no residual tumor was found near the original biopsy site. In another portion of the same breast was found high-grade intraductal carcinoma involving the nipple ducts, with Paget Disease of the nipple. (No size was given for this.)

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is a single primary. According to Exception 3 of Multiple Primary Rule 6 for multiple tumors, combinations of Paget disease and ductal carcinoma are a single primary. The histology code for this case is 8541 [Paget disease and infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Assign CS extension code 10 [confined to breast tissue] based on the information above.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2005
20051126 Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What codes are used to represent "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma" and "papillary serous carcinoma with focal clear cell features" of the ovary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8323 [Mixed cell adenocarcinoma] to "mixed papillary serous and clear cell carcinoma." This is histology coding rule 3 in the 2004 SEER manual under single tumor (page 86). There is no other code for this mixture.

Example 1: 8323

Example 2: 8461 (clear cell is not coded according to Rule 6, page 87, because it is not the majority of the tumor).

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2005
20051109 CS Site Specific Factor/Terminology--Breast: Does the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma qualify as "minimal" in situ component when coding SSF6 field (assessment of the invasive and in situ components present) in the CS breast scheme?

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.

Yes, the term "focal areas" of in situ carcinoma describes a minimal in situ component.

 2005
20051046

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.

Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."

Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".

Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.

Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.

Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2005
20051083

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when there is a marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma [9699/3] diagnosed in 2000, and the clinician states that the diffuse large B-Cell type lymphoma [9680/3] diagnosed in 2004 was a transformation of the prior primary? See Discussion.

The Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates they are most likely "D" different disease processes. As any low grade lymphoma can transform, we suspect this represents a transformation (the clinician is regarding this as transformed).

How many primary/ies should be coded?

And, how?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Report this case as one primary according to the physician's opinion. Code the histology as 9699/3 [marginal zone B-Cell lymphoma, NOS] and code the date of diagnosis as 2000.

Code the physicians opinion regardless of whether or not it agrees with the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table. Use the table when the physician does not state whether or not there is a new primary.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2005
20051070 CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which category has priority when both apply, "Regional lymph nodes, NOS" or "Stated as N_, NOS"? See Discussion. Example: When there is a clinical diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis for a breast primary on a physical exam "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement", as well as a clinical N1 designation, do we code as 60 [Axillary LNS, NOS] or 26 [Stated as N1, 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.For the example provided, assign code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s)...] for "Enlarged axillary lymph nodes suspicious for metastatic involvement." Code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS] is the least specific and would not be used in this case because axillary nodes are defined in code 25. Code 26 is for cases in which "N1, NOS" documented by the physician is the only information available.

 2005