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: 12/25/2025 18:29 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061091

Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?

Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.

 2006
20061125 CS Lymph Nodes: Are positive right superficial inguinal lymph nodes coded to 30 (which is the case for anal canal primaries) or 31 (which is the case for anus primaries) if the primary is stated to be in the "cloacogenic zone" or is an anorectal primary?

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 code 30 for positive unilateral superficial inguinal lymph nodes for cloacogenic primaries. The cloacogenic zone is part of the anal canal.

 2006
20061071 CS Extension--Lymphoma: In the absence of physician staging, is an "enlarged" spleen seen on CT coded as involvement of the spleen for lymphoma cases?

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.

Do not code spleen involvement when the only evidence is an enlarged spleen.

When imaging is the only diagnostic tool (no biopsy or splenectomy), spleen involvement is based on the presence of nodules and not on enlargement. Splenic enlargement alone (by physical exam or imaging) is insufficient to support involvement of spleen.

 2006
20061087

Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.

PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated. The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3. 2006
20061097

Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion.

Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia.

Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis.

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.

 2006
20061037 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.

Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"

A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."

These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.

According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.

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.

 2006
20061018 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion. MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.

However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.

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.

 2006
20061109 CS Tumor Size--Lung/Breast: Explain why the SEER instructions differ from the CS Manual regarding priority order of sources to code tumor size? See Discussion. Regarding the 2004 SEER Manual, Appendix C, Site Specific Coding Modules, Lung and Breast. The priority of sources for coding tumor size is Pathology, Operative Report, PE, imaging for breast and pathology, operative, endoscopic, and imaging for lung. This differs from the CS Manual instructions.

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 cases diagnosed in 2007 and forward, follow the instructions in the 2007 SEER manual and the CS manual.

 2006
20061063 CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.

1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?

Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?

If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)

2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))

a. Heart problems?

b. The location of the pleural effusion?

i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?

ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?

iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?

iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?

SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION

Note 6: Pleural Effusion.

A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.

B. Note from AJCC manual: Most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor.

In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.

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.

1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.

2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.

 2006
20061015 2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Site Specific Factor: Does SEER plan to incorporate the "Recording Tumor Markers in Collaborative Staging System Site-Specific Factors" document that was prepared for the CS Task Force Training Materials into the 2006 SEER Manual?

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.

There are no plans at this time to incorporate the Recording Tumor Markers document into the SEER manual. This document is not part of the Collaborative Staging manual. This is a stand-alone reference endorsed by the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee for use in coding site-specific tumor markers.

 2006