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: 05/30/2025 10:51 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20140078

Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Is any mention of cautery in the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen sufficient to code 22 (excisional biopsy with electrocautery), or does there need to be a statement in the operative report that electrocautery was performed? See discussion.

Often, pathology for TURBT with non-invasive papillary TCC includes a gross description with a variety of cautery descriptions. For example, "received are three cautery roughened gray-pale pink tissue fragments.” However, the operative report is documented as a "TURBT" with no further description of the procedure.

Assign code 22 when cautery is mentioned n the gross description of pathology for a TURBT specimen.

2014
20230049

Update to Current Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Skin: Regarding the 2023 skin surgery codes for punch biopsy NOS (B220) and shave biopsy NOS (B230), how is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded for cutaneous lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma when the punch or shave biopsy is not excisional? See Discussion.

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

We are aware of the instruction for melanoma cases outlined in SINQ 20230034; however, it is unclear if this should also apply to cutaneous lymphomas and Kaposi sarcomas, or if the intent of the procedure is used for these specific types of skin cases that typically present with multifocal involvement.

Example 1: Patient is diagnosed March 2023 with primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma presenting as pink, tan patches on the trunk. Punch biopsy diagnosed CTCL and treatment was given via narrow band UVB phototherapy.

Example 2: Patient is diagnosed February 2023 with Kaposi sarcoma presenting as widespread violaceous macules, papules, plaques on the torso, bilateral extremities, and abdomen. Punch biopsy diagnosed Kaposi sarcoma.

Code the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200) as the date the shave, punch, or elliptical biopsy was performed. This instruction applies to cutaneous lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma as well. Beginning with cases diagnosed 2023 and after, shave, punch, or elliptical biopsies are coded as a surgical procedure regardless of margin status.

The instruction in the 2023 SEER Manual that states "shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed" has been deleted from the 2024 SEER Manual.  Refer also to the Appendix C Coding Guidelines for Kaposi Sarcoma of All Sites and Lymphoma for coding primary site.

 2023
20230034

Update to Current Manual/Surgery of Primary Site 2023--Melanoma:  Considering the 2023 melanoma surgery codes for punch biopsy NOS (B220) and shave biopsy NOS (B230), how is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded when the punch or shave biopsy is not excisional? See Discussion.

Now that there are specific surgery codes for shave and punch biopsies, are these biopsies always the Date of First Surgical Procedure (NAACCR Item #1200)? Or should we still be applying the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 instruction in the SEER Manual that states shave or punch biopsies are most often diagnostic; code as a surgical procedure only when the entire tumor is removed and margins are free/gross disease is removed?

Example: On 01/01/2023, patient has a frontal scalp shave biopsy showing melanoma, margins involved. On 02/01/2023, frontal scalp excision shows residual melanoma. Surgery code is assigned B520 (shave followed by wide excision). How is Date of First Surgical Procedure coded now that there is an additional surgery code for the shave biopsy?

Code the Date of First Surgical Procedure as 01/01/2023 in the example provided where the shave biopsy is followed by wide excision. Beginning in 2023, significant changes were made in that shave, punch, and elliptical biopsies are coded as surgical procedure regardless of margin status. Appendix C Skin Surgery Codes state that an incisional biopsy would be a needle or core biopsy of the primary tumor.

Please see Appendix M: Case Studies for Coding Melanoma in STORE v23, Case study 2: Shave Biopsy followed by WLE (page 412), for an explicit example of how to code your example case.

We will clarify this in the upcoming release of the SEER manual,

 2023
20061061 CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion.

Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes."

1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60?

2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process?

3. What would constitute "absence of other information"?

4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users?

5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate?

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 Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have "regular" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described.

1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes.

2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3.

3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50.

4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries.

5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary.

 2006
20240010

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Prostate: Other Sites Solid Tumor RulesTable 3 (Prostate Histologies), Note 1 in the Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (8574/3) row, conflicts with Note 2 and requires further clarification. See Discussion.

Note 1 states that this histology is treatment-related neuroendocrine prostatic carcinoma demonstrating complete neuroendocrine differentiation or partial neuroendocrine differentiation with adenocarcinoma after androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Conversely, Note 2 says to code 8574/3 only when there is no history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma or history of androgen-deprivation therapy.

The WHO Blue Book does confirm this is a treatment-related histology, so it seems we would only use this for an adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation (or even possibly a mixed histology tumor with adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma components) if the patient had previous treatment.

If this histology is treatment-related, why would we use this code for a patient without a history of prostate adenocarcinoma or androgen-deprivation therapy? Should Note 2 be corrected?

Does this histology apply to a post-treatment diagnosis of mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma? If yes, should this clarification be added?

Assign code 8574/3 only when there is

A history of androgen-deprivation therapy or

No history of previous prostate adenocarcinoma

Prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation (PCND) can present as untreated primary pathology (i.e., a new primary) or more commonly as a post ADT and androgen receptor inhibition resistance phenomenon.  PCND is either a newly diagnosed prostate cancer or a result of ADT indicated for treatment of other prostate cancers or other non-cancer diagnoses (e.g., benign prostatic hyperplasia) but not for the PCND diagnosis.

We will edit the notes to make them more clear.

 2024
20130213 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How do you code the primary site for a marginal zone lymphoma involving bilateral axillary lymph nodes and inguinal lymph nodes, bone marrow and bilateral orbits that the physician refers to as a bilateral orbital lymphoma, Stage IV? See Discussion.

None of the rules seem to apply when the lymphoma is present in an organ, distant lymph nodes and bone marrow only. No regional nodes are involved.

Does rule PH22 infer that the organ should be coded as the primary site because it has been named by the physician?

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

Per Rule PH24, code primary site to orbit. According to Rule PH24, one is to code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present only in an organ. Note 2 under this rule also instructs one to capture the secondary involvement of distant lymph nodes and/or bone marrow in CS extension fields.

If the physician had not confirmed the primary site as orbit, you would have used Rule PH22 when the primary site is not indicated.

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.

2013
20110024 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded, and which MP/H rule applies for a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with clear cell features? See Discussion.

None of the histology rules for in situ breast seem to apply to this case:

  • Rule H3 doesn't seem to apply because "clear cell" is not a specific intraductal carcinoma.

  • Rule H6 doesn't seem to apply because there is not a combination of intraductal and 2 or more specific types of intraductal.

  • Rule H8 wouldn't apply because one of the types is intraductal.

    • For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Code 8523/2 [intraductal carcinoma mixed with other types of in situ carcinoma]. Rule H6 should apply to this case.

    The wording in the Rule H6 needs to be clarified to handle a case of intraductal carcinoma with one or more subtypes that are not ductal. This will also require a modification to Table 3. A row needs to be added to the table labeled, "Intraductal and one or more of the histologies in Column 2." The Column 3 text for the newly added row would read, " Intraductal mixed with other types of carcinoma." The appropriate histology code to be reported per Column 4 would be 8523/2. This will be done in the next revision of the rules.

    		2011
    		20110011 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a 2010 diagnosis of "thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" reportable? See Discussion.

    No exact match returned after entering the term "thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" in the Heme DB. However, the program does indicate there are 17 results that could be displayed that show any of the 4 terms entered. Clicking on the search label indicates there are no matches either.

    The only result returned after entering "thrombocytopenia" into the search box is "refractory thrombocytopenia."

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

    "Thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology" is not reportable. Thrombocytopenia refers to a low platelet count which causes bleeding. Thrombocytopenia can be caused by viral infections, excessive alcohol usage, HIV, and other causes (including chemotherapy). If the diagnosis is not "refractory thrombocytopenia" the case is not reportable. Appendix F lists this term as non-reportable.

    If you do not see the term in the Heme DB under either the Name column or the Alternative Names section for the results returned, it is not reportable. The only reportable term that contains the word thrombocytopenia is refractory thrombocytopenia. Therefore, thrombocytopenia of unknown etiology is not reportable.

    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.

    		2011
    		20210010

    Reportability--Head & Neck: Is chondrosarcoma, grade 1 reportable for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later? See Discussion.

    Neither the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines nor the ICD-O-3.2 Coding Guidelines (including Tables 1-7) address reportability changes for chondrosarcoma grade 1. In the Solid Tumor Rules Manual, Head and Neck Equivalent Terms and Definitions, Table 7 (Tumors of Odontogenic and Maxillofacial Bone (Mandible, Maxilla)), Chrondrosarcoma grade 2/3 (9220/3) is included as a subtype/variant for sarcomas in these sites, but it does not address chrondrosarcoma, grade 1.

    The ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table lists Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 as morphology code 9222/1. If Chondrosarcoma, grade 1 is no longer a reportable tumor for cases diagnosed 01/01/2021 and later, why wasn't this reportability change included in the ICD-O-3.2 Implementation Guidelines? If the standard setters chose not to include this reportability change, shouldn't Table 7 also indicate that all chondrosarcomas (NOS, grade 1, grade 2 or grade 3) are reportable for cases diagnosed 2018 and later?

    How are registrars to make reportability and histology coding decisions for chondrosarcomas when neither source provides clear instructions regarding these tumors?

    Chrondrosarcoma, grade 1 (9222/1) is not reportable according to the Reportability section in the 2021 SEER Manual. The histology (9222/1) is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as a synonym for atypical cartilaginous tumor (preferred term).

    In general, the tables do not include non-reportable terms and codes. Registrars should refer to their standard setter (to whom they submit data) for reportable neoplasms. Currently, /0 and /1 neoplasms are reportable for central nervous system sites only. ICD-O-3.2 includes all neoplasms but that does not mean they are reportable. If a facility collects non-malignant neoplasms, use the corresponding ICD-O code in 3.2.

    		 2021
    		20130207 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a new primary reported for the diagnosis of plasmacytoma associated with a pathological fracture if it follows a diagnosis five years ago of multiple myeloma? See Discussion.

    Multiple myeloma was diagnosed more than 5 years prior to admission. The patient underwent multimodality treatment.

    Currently, the patient suffered a fracture. The pathology report diagnosis was "plasmacytoma." The discharge summary states, "multiple myeloma advanced with multiple lytic lesions".

    Does this scenario represent a single primary dating back to the original diagnosis? Or does the diagnosis of plasmacytoma on the recent biopsy indicate a new primary because it was originally diagnosed as acute and reverts to a chronic neoplasm after treatment more than 21 days later?

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

    Per the Abstractor Notes section, this case represents a single primary. Histology is coded to 9732/2 [multiple myeloma], which is now advanced.

    Review the Abstractor Notes section in the Heme DB for multiple myeloma. It states that in multiple myeloma there is generalize bone marrow involvement. It further states that lytic bone lesions and bone tumor masses of plasma cells (plasmacytomas) are signs of advanced disease. According to the Discharge Summary, this patient had multiple lytic lesions and plasmacytoma which indicates advanced disease.

    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.

    		2013