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: 03/03/2026 06:40 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081096 Computed Ethnicity: Should the Name--Alias field be used when generating Computed Ethnicity? No, "Alias" is not used and should not be used to generate Computed Ethnicity. Computed Ethnicity records the ethnicity based on last name and/or maiden name using a computer algorithm. Alias is not part of the algorithm. 2008
20081141

MP/H Rules--Lung: How do we interpret 'spiculated opacities?' How many primaries do we abstract for this patient? See Discussion.

Patient admitted for CT scan of chest. Impression: A small subpleural spiculated opacity is noted in the left upper lobe measuring 9.7x7.7mm. Right upper lobe spiculated nodular opacity measures 13.9x5.9mm. Right lower lobe scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities are noted. The lungs are otherwise clear. Abnormal soft tissue density mass is noted of the right hilum surrounding the distal main right pulmonary artery. Bronchoscopy/mediastinoscopy done: rare malignant cells present consistent with small cell carcinoma, specimen submitted as brushing of right bronchus intermedius. The tumor in the lymph node is metastatic small cell carcinoma. Patient discharged to hospice; died 5 weeks later.

Do the MP/H rules pertain only to the measured opacities in each lung and not to the RLL scattered faint alveolar nodular opacities? The right side was cytologically confirmed. But if we abstract the left lung, what is the histology...8041 or 8000?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Because there was cytologic confirmation of cancer, for this case only count the spiculated opacities as tumors. Abstract as a single primary using Rule M1. Note 2 under lung rule M1 applies to this case.

Code the histology as 8041 [small cell carcinoma] per rule H10.

 2008
20081088 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx: How should these fields be coded for an in situ diagnosis when the patient was diagnosed by biopsy only and there is no information in the chart regarding an evaluation of lymph nodes or metastatic sites? See Discussion.

In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.

This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.

I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006

A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?

I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.

Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.

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 Lymph Nodes and CS Mets at Dx 00 [None] for an in situ diagnosis with no other information.

The CS instructions state that CS LN's should be coded 00 for in situ because in situ by definition is non-invasive. The same logic applies to CS mets in the case of in situ. The I&R answer will be revised.

 2008
20081016

Laterality--Brain and CNS: When a meningioma extends to both right and left sides, is laterality coded 4 for bilateral or 9 for midline? See Discussion.

Operative Findings: Bilateral frontal craniotomies for excision of giant meningioma which extended onto optic chiasm.

Path: Bifrontal tumor, 6.5 cm meningotheliomatous meningioma.

 If it is not possible to determine whether the meningioma originated on the left or the right, assign code 4 [Bilateral involvement, lateral origin unknown; stated to be single primary]. 2008
20081082 Histology--Head & Neck: How do you code histology for a myofibroblastic sarcoma of the soft tissue of the head and neck? Assign code 8825/3 [Myofibroblastoma, malignant]. According to the WHO Classification of Soft Tissue Tumors, "Low grade myofibroblastic sarcoma represents a distinct atypical myofibroblastic tumor often with fibromatosis-like features and predilection for the head and neck." Also called myofibrosarcoma. 2008
20081073

CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

 2008
20081099 MPH Rules/Behavior--Breast: Would a positive right axillary node following DCIS of the right breast indicate the presence of a new primary? See Discussion. How would you abstract the information from 2007? A patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had bilateral simple mastectomies in 2000, after a suspicious mammogram. Results showed DCIS in the rt breast; no malignancy in the left breast. Now in 2007, the patient has a right axillary lymph node removed - positive for carcinoma of breast origin. Comment says, "recurrent breast carcinoma in rt axillary node from patient's known history of DCIS." Is this a new primary? Is this a diagnosis date in 2007? Is the site C509 and laterality right side?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

A metastasis was diagnosed in 2007. The 2007 MP/H rules do not apply to metastases.

Change the behavior code of the 2000 diagnosis. The breast cancer diagnosed in 2000 must have been invasive based on the metastasis in 2007.

 2008
20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

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.

 2008
20081118 Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How is this field to be coded when a patient undergoes stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor? Path specimen consists of four fragments of tissue measuring .7, .6 and .3 cm. Assign code 20 [Local excision (biopsy) of lesion or mass. Specimen sent to pathology from surgical event 20]. 2008
20081109

MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.

A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.

The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.

Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.

 2008