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: 10/08/2026 01:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20071054 Date of Diagnosis: Can the phrase "suspicious for a primary lung tumor" from a CT be used to code date of diagnosis? See Discussion. Thorax CT on 4/18/05 states 'enlarged RUL nodular opacity suspicious for a primary lung tumor.' Biopsy confirmation was not done until 8/4/05 because patient declined further work-up until then. Would date of diagnoses be 4/18/05 or 8/4/05?

Code the diagnosis date 08/04/2005 based on the biopsy.

The statement "suspicious for a primary tumor" is not a clinical diagnosis of cancer or malignancy.

 N/A Date of diagnosis 2007
20031033 Grade, Differentiation--Hematopoietic: Is this field coded to 6 [B-cell] from a flow cytometry that specifies the percentage of B-cells that exist within the percentage of lymphoid cells in the bone marrow biopsy? See Description. Bone marrow biopsy, Final path diagnosis: consistent with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Comment: flow cytometry analysis was performed on bone marrow aspirate. The gated population of lymphoid cells comprises approximately 19% of total nucleated cells. Of these, 53% are B-cells which express CD19, CD22. These findings are consistent with the above diagnosis.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, assign code 6, B-cell. The flow cytometry analysis confirms B-cell.

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.

 N/A N/A 2003
20031036 Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When both the path and clinical diagnoses simultaneously reflect reportable diagnoses but one is a worse form of the same disease process, which diagnosis do we code? See Description. Would this case be coded to RAEB or AML? Bone marrow diagnosis: Hypercellular marrow with profound trilinieage dyspoietic changes. Comment: the features are consistent with RAEB. Clinical diagnosis five days later states: Myelodysplastic syndrome, early acute myelocytic leukemia (likely AML).

When several diagnoses are made as part of the diagnostic process within two months, code the one with the worst prognosis.

Code the case example as acute myelocytic leukemia.

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.

N/A Histology 2003
20061002 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion. 5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is one primary.

Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.

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.

 N/A N/A 2006
20021044 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: Can histology and/or grade be coded from a metastatic site? See discussion.

Example 1: No pathology specimen is available from the primary site for a lung primary. Rib biopsy demonstrated "anaplastic adenocarcinoma."

Example 2: Lung tissue biopsy revealed "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma" for a lung primary. Pleural effusion cytology was consistent with "adenocarcinoma".

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Example 1: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/39 [adenocarcinoma, NOS, grade not stated]. Because there was no microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, the histology may be coded from the microscopic examination of the tissue from a metastatic site. Do not code grade from a metastatic site regardless of whether the involvement of the metastatic site is by direct extension or by discontinuous metastases.

Example 2: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8046/33 [non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. Because there is a microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, that information should be used to code histology rather than a cytology of a metastatic site.

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.

 N/A Histology 2002
20031039

EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description.

CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?

Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor.

Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging.

 N/A N/A 2003
20000491 Terminology: Do focus, focal, foci and chips mean the same thing?

Focus, focal, and foci are variations of the same word. Focus (noun) describes an area or point of disease, either grossly or microscopically. Focal (adjective) relates to the area/focus of disease; an example is a prostate with focal adenocarcinoma. This means that the majority of the prostate is benign and the adenocarcinoma is confined to one small area/point. Foci (plural) describe more than one area/focus of disease. A prostate with foci of adenocarcinoma means the disease is multifocal (several areas/points of disease).

Chips are microscopic amounts of either tissue or tumor. A pathologist might examine several chips of prostate tissue, one of which contains a focus of adenocarcinoma.

 N/A N/A 2000
20061135 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).

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.

 N/A N/A 2006
20010110 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked "poorly differentiated" on the TNM form)? Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form. N/A N/A 2001
20021175 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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.

 N/A Histology 2002