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: 10/07/2026 19:15 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031170 Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?

Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.

In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather

progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.

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 2003
20130029 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is "post polycythemic myelofibrosis" reportable? See Discussion. The bone marrow biopsy showed post polycythemic myelofibrosis. JAK2 mutations were present confirming the diagnosis of post polycythemic myelofibrosis. The patient does have a history of polycythemia vera (PV).

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

Polycythemia Vera (PV) [9950/3] is reportable. The Abstractor Notes section in the Hematopoietic Database for PV indicates there are three phases of PV. The third phase is referred to as the "spent" or "post-polycythemic myelofibrosis phase". This patient appears to be in the third phase of PV. This would not be reported as a new primary if PV has already been reported.

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.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
20081125 Reportability: Is the following tumor(s) reportable? MRI of thoracic spine shows intramedullary hemangiomas in the bodies of T5 and T6.

Intramedullary hemangiomas in T5 and T6 are not reportable.

These benign tumors originate in the bone, not spinal canal, cord or dura. Benign tumors of the bone are not reportable.

According to WHO, the most common sites of involvement are the vertebral bodies, followed by craniofacial skeleton and long bones.

 N/A N/A 2008
20130023

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion.

If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?

The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.

The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.

Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.

Brain and CNS N/A 2013
20091106 Multiple Primaries--Urinary: How many primaries should be coded for an 8/9/07 invasive transitional cell carcinoma of right ureter; 7/9/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of bladder; 11/18/08 non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter; 6/20/09 invasive urothelial carcinoma of left ureter? One primary. This is a good example of how the field effect occurs in the urinary system. From 2007 to 2008, Rule M8 says bladder and ureter tumors are not new primaries and would be documented as recurrences. Because other urinary sites are involved by 11/08 and by 06/09, do not make second primary of left ureter (Rule M4 does not apply). Bladder N/A 2009
20130015 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is essential thrombocytopenia reportable? See Discussion. Many times essential thrombocytopenia has been coded based on blood counts. Sometimes the discharge summary states thrombocytosis (NOS), and the case is coded to essential thrombocytopenia. Are these cases reportable?

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

The following are not alternative names for any reportable disease process:

  • Essential thrombocytopenia

  • Reactive thrombocytosis

  • Thrombocythemia

  • Thrombocytopenia

  • Thrombocytosis

    • The diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia is based on blood counts, but is usually a diagnosis made by excluding other myelodysplastic disorders. The following are reportable disease processes:

    • Essential thrombocythemia (9962/3)

  • Essential thrombocytosis (9962/3)

  • Refractory thrombocytopenia (9992/3)

    • 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.

    		Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2013
    		20021027

    EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should a 2.0 cm ulcerated mass be coded to 020 or 999 for tumor size? See discussion.

    		With regard to tumor size, how would SEER interpret "2.0 cm ulcerated mass"? Should this be interpreted as an ulcer, or is it a gross description of the appearance of a mass and therefore acceptable to code tumor size to it?

    For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

    If this ulcerated mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2.0 cm] based on the size of this mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description.

    		 N/A N/A 2002
    		20061040 Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus? Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus. N/A N/A 2006
    		20120094

    Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

    VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

    For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

    		 N/A N/A 2012
    		20120092 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Recurrence -- Lung: How many primaries are accessioned if a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung is followed three years later by a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung if the pathologist reviews all the slides and states the subsequent diagnosis is a recurrence? See Discussion.

    7/12/2007 Left upper lobe lung lobectomy: Squamous cell carcinoma.

    3/09/2010 Left lung completion pneumonectomy: Adenocarcinoma, predominantly acinar. The diagnosis comment on the pathology report indicates the previous lobectomy specimen from 2007 was reviewed and "there are areas that appear histologically similar to the current neoplasm. Thus, the findings are most compatible with recurrence."

    Despite the difference in histology, is this a single primary per the MP/H Coding Rules, General Information instruction 7 because the pathologist did refer to the 3/9/2010 diagnosis as a "recurrence" of the 7/12/2007 diagnosis after reviewing the slides?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession a single primary, left upper lobe squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed 7/27/2007.

    The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

    Go to the General Information notes for Determining Multiple Primaries for Solid Malignant Tumors in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual.

    General Information Rule 7 states "Use the multiple primary rules as written unless a pathologist compares the present tumor to the "original" tumor and states that this tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary."

    Accession a single primary. Do not apply the Multiple Primary rules because the pathologist compared the 2007 and 2010 slides and determined this was a recurrence and not a new primary.

    		N/A N/A 2012