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: 04/23/2026 08:56 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091096 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion. Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated "Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis." The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease. 2009
20091035 CS Extension--Ovary: What code is used to capture omental caking?

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.The term "omental caking" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.

When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case.

 2009
20091009 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. 2009
20091121 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Brain: Does a patient diagnosed with anaplastic astrocytoma of the left temporal lobe in 2000 followed by a diagnosis of oligoastrocytoma of the right frontal lobe in 2007 have a single primary per rule M7 or multiple primaries per rule M8? See Discussion. MP/H rule M7 states that tumors with ICD-O-3 histologies on the same branch in chart 1 are a single primary. Chart 1 shows that both of the histologies for our sample case are located on the glial branch. However, the glial tumor branch has three secondary branches. Does rule M7 apply to secondary branches? Anaplastic astrocytoma [9402] is classified under the secondary branch for astrocytic tumors. Oligoastrocytoma [9382] is classified under the secondary branch for mixed glioma. Does rule M7 or does rule M8 apply for this case? Does this case represent one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, Rule M8 applies. There are two primaries.

Anaplastic astrocytoma and oligoastrocytoma (mixed glioma) are on separate branches in Chart 1. They are both gliomas, but one is a mixed glioma and the other is an astrocytic tumor.

2009
20091033 CS Tumor Size--Ovary: Can the size of a tumor mass shadow seen on a CT scan be used to code CS Tumor Size? See Discussion. Ovarian primary: No surgery performed. CT abd/pelvis states "Bilateral pleural effusions, ascites. Right appendix region with tumor mass shadow 3 x 8 x 3.9cm"

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.Code CS tumor size 999 [Unknown; size not stated]. The size of the tumor is not known in this case.

Note that tumor size is not used for AJCC staging for ovary.

 2009
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091065

Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How are these fields coded for a non-Hodgkins lymphoma case with scans that show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules and a large mediastinal mass? See Discussion.

Patient presented with large bulky mediastinal mass. CT showed no pleural effusion. Findings also show non-specific parenchymal lung nodules. Biopsy of mediastinal mass showed malignant B-cell lymphoma of follicle center cell origin. Abdomen /Pelvis CT showed borderline lymph nodes in bifurcation. Clinical diagnosis was probable stage 3 if not 4 lymphoma. Per lymphoma guidelines, if extra-nodal primary site is assigned to the extranodal site if an extra-nodal site and its regional lymph nodes are involved. Would the parenchymal lung nodules be indicative of pulmonary involvement? If so, would primary site be lung? Or, would the parenchymal nodules be stage 4 disease and primary site be assigned to lymph nodes?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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.

Code Primary Site to C779 [Lymph node, NOS]. In this case, there is no statement that lymphoma involves the lung. "Nonspecific parenchymal lung nodules" are not indicative of lymphoma involvement. Consequently, this cannot be assumed to be an extra-nodal lymphoma. Additionally, it is not clear whether or not the "borderline" pelvic lymph nodes are involved. If the physician cannot provide more information, follow instruction 4.e in the SEER manual on page 72.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091083 Grade/Cell indicator--Lymphoma: How is Grade/Cell indicator coded for anaplastic large cell lymphoma? See Discussion. The SPCM states cell indicator codes take precedence over grade/differentiation codes for lymphoma and leukemia cases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Because there is no cell indicator information, code 9 [cell type not determined] in the grade/cell indicator field. Do not code grade for lymphoma. For lymphoma and leukemia this field is the cell indicator.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 2009
20091107

CS Extension--Lymphoma: Does peripheral blood involvement affect the stage for lymphoma? See Discussion.

2009 Diagnostic Year

Lymph node bx is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on lymph node tissue shows CD+ pos B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. IHC findings support Mantle Cell lymphoma. Flow cytometry on peripheral blood shows CD+ B cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Because the lymph node is positive for Mantle Cell lymphoma and the flow cytometry findings are the same on the lymph node tissue and peripheral blood, is the peripheral blood involved (Stage IV disease)?

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.No. Peripheral blood is not the same as bone marrow involvement which is what would be required for stage IV.

Lymphomas can arise in lymph nodes which are connected by lymphatic vessels. Both lymphatic vessels and blood vessels travel through lymph nodes and malignant cells can travel between the vessels. Cells in peripheral blood do not prove Stage IV.

 2009