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: 05/27/2026 12:20 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110074 First course treatment/Date therapy initiated--Breast: How is the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field coded when a patient undergoes "Tamoxifen blunting" to achieve better MRI imaging after a biopsy but prior to definitive surgery which is followed by adjuvant Tamoxifen therapy? See Discussion. Patients are prescribed two weeks of "Tamoxifen blunting" to achieve better MRI imaging after biopsy confirmation of an ER/PR positive breast carcinoma. The Tamoxifen is subsequently discontinued and the patient has definitive surgery. Following surgery, maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated. Which date should be recorded for the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field? Is it the first date when Tamoxifen blunting started or the post-surgical date when maintenance Tamoxifen is initiated? Use the post-surgical start date of maintenance Tamoxifen to code the Date of Initiation of Hormone Therapy field. The actual hormone treatment begins after surgery when Tamoxifen blunting was performed. The low dose administered prior to surgery does not affect the cancer. 2011
20110130 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion.

09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.

07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS).

Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.

The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].

The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.

2011
20110015 Primary site/Histology: Do the 4/1/09 changes in the ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation table regarding the coding of primary site for intestinal type adenocarcinoma mean that the former valid site/histology combinations are now impossible and require review from a given diagnosis date forward? See Discussion.

Per the SEER Errata for ICD-O-3 Site/Type Validation List, April 1, 2009, adenocarcinoma, intestinal type, was removed as a valid site/histology combination for the following primary sites: C150-C155, C158-C159, C170-C173, C178-C179, C180-C189, C199, C209, C210-C212, C218.

  • Does this mean that these combinations cannot be used? If so, then why is an override allowed for these site/type combinations? Shouldn't these site/type combinations be added to the impossible site/type combinations table?

  • SINQ 20081085 states that "8144/3 will be removed from the valid site/histology list for large intestine, small intestine, and rectum." It appears from the Site/Type Validation table that a decision was made to also remove esophagus sites as a valid combination with histology code of 8144. Please explain the rationale.

  • Cases that were miscoded to 8144/3 will need to be identified for correction. What date of diagnosis should be the reference point used in making the necessary corrections related to this change? Do we only need to review cases diagnosed 1/1/2009 forward or should all cases be corrected regardless of date of diagnosis?

    • The site/type edit identifies unlikely combinations of primary site and histologic type.

  • Intestinal type adenocarcinoma occurs in the stomach. It would be rare in another primary site, but not impossible.

  • It was decided that all digestive organ sites, except stomach, would be removed from the list. That is why esophagus is not listed as a valid site.

  • The site/type edit is for all years. Cases for all years have to be reviewed for combinations of site and type that are no longer on the list. If it is documented in the medical record that the primary site and histology combination are valid, set the over-ride flag so that the case will not come up for review again.

    		• 2011
    		20110154

    Behavior--Breast: Is a breast biopsy diagnosis of "ductal carcinoma in situ with focal and very early stromal invasion" an invasive tumor with a behavior code 3?

    Code the behavior to /3 [malignant, invasive].

    "Stromal invasion" means the cancer is invasive. "Stroma" is the supporting connective tissue around and between ducts. It is outside the duct basement membrane. If the tumor cells extend into the stroma, the proper behavior designation for the tumor is invasive.

    		 2011
    		20110065 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted when a skin (right thigh) biopsy is consistent with mycosis fungoides (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma)? See Discussion. Applying rule M15 (multiple primaries calculator) indicates this is two primaries. Is this correct?

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

    Code the primary site to C447 [skin of lower limb] and code histology to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides]. he pathologist wrote in parentheses that this was cutaneous (i.e. primary site is skin) and that it is a T-cell lymphoma (mycosis fungoides is a T-cell lineage). So the parenthetical statement was not a separate diagnosis; rather a general classification of the mycosis fungoides. "CTCL" is listed under the Alternate Names section of the Heme DB. CTCL is an abbreviation for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. CTCL is a synonym for mycosis fungoides. This is a single primary per M2 which states to abstract a single primary when there is a single histology.

    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
    		20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

    On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

    SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

    This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

    		2010
    		20100087 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for one patient with history of marginal zone lymphoma initially diagnosed in 1994, followed by a 2010 diagnosis of large B-cell lymphoma and another patient with both B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) in 2009? See Discussion.

    Case 1 - Patient has a history of marginal zone lymphoma diagnosed in 1994 with recurrences in 2007 and 2009. The patient now presents for a bone marrow biopsy in May 2010 and is found to have large B-cell lymphoma, transformation. The first primary, marginal zone lymphoma, falls under the 2009 rules and the second primary, large B-cell lymphoma, falls under the 2010 and forward rules?

    Case 2 - Patient was diagnosed with B-cell CLL/SLL and a DLBCL in 2009. If the 2009 rules only apply, these are a single primary. If the patient is admitted and treated in 2010 are the rules still based on the diagnosis date?

    Updated May 2026

    Case 1: Accession two primaries per Rule M10 when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm diagnosed after the initial clinical workup of the chronic neoplasm is completed. The histology for the first primary is 9699/3 [marginal zone lymphoma] represents a chronic neoplasm and the second primary is 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] is an acute neoplasm which was diagnosed more than 21 days after the first primary.

    Case 2: Do not use the Heme DB and Manual rules for this case. Both diagnoses were made prior to 2010. The Heme DB and Manual are only effective for cases diagnosed 1/1/2010 and forward. Use the ICD-O-3 Hematopoietic Primaries Table to determine the number of primaries for this case. Per the Table, a second diagnosis of DLBCL [9680/3] following a diagnosis of CLL/SLL [9823/3] is one primary

    		 2010
    		20100048 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the primary site coded for a patient diagnosed with Langerhans cell histocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma involving both the seventh rib and the right temporal bone? See Discussion. Patient was diagnosed with Langerhans cell histiocytosis/eosinophilic granuloma following a biopsy of the seventh rib on 3/22/10. On 4/13/10 the patient had a right external ear canal mass (right temporal bone) biopsy with same diagnosis. Should the primary site be coded to bone, NOS [C419]?

    Updated May 2026

    Per the Hematopoietic database, if a primary site of LCH is not able to be determined, default to C419. So, assign C419 for this case.

    Langerhans cell histiocytosis can occur as a solitary lesion, multifocal lesions, or multisystem disease. In this case, the patient has multifocal disease of the bone.

    For cases diagnosed 2010-2020, LCH is reported as 9751/3 for all diagnoses.

    For cases diagnosed 2021+, only Langerhans, disseminated (multifocal, multiorgan, multisystem) is reportable as 9751/3.

    		2010
    		20100074 Laterality--Melanoma: For a melanoma case, does the term "mid" imply that the tumor is in the midline when the site is the skin of back (trunk)? Yes. When the location is described as mid-back or mid-chest with no indication of left or right, assign laterality code 5 [midline]. 2010
    		20100094

    Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a peripheral blood equivalent to bone marrow biopsy for the purposes of Rule PH26 and code the primary site to C421 [Bone marrow] for a marginal zone lymphoma found in peripheral blood when there was no additional workup (e.g., scans, etc.) for this case?

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

    Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Our hematopoietic specialty physicians state that involvement of peripheral blood is equivalent to bone marrow involvement because the marrow produces blood. In the absence of any other involvement, per Module 7 (Coding primary sites for lymphomas) Rule PH26, it states to code the primary site to bone marrow when the only involvement is bone marrow.

    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.

    		 2010