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: 04/26/2026 13:34 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071045 Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.

The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.

Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.

This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.

 2007
20071110 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: The Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases, page 47, states to determine whether the physician is using the term myelodysplasia to describe bone marrow marrow malfunction or a neoplasic syndrome in order to determine reportability. What do we do when there is no information one way or the other?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Without further information, the term "myelodysplasia" alone is not reportable. If a more definitive diagnosis is made later, the case may become reportable.

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.

 2007
20071001 CS Site Specific Factor/Melanoma: How is CS SSF1 (depth of invasion) coded for a melanoma that demonstrates dermal invasion to a depth of "less than .2 mm" be coded to 999 [unknown]? See Discussion.

The path report says "superficial spreading malignant melanoma; 2 areas of papillary dermal invasion to depth of less than .2mm."

The revised CS pages include codes for "less than" a certain tumor size, but these are not included in the depth of invasion SSF. Using 999 results in an unstageable melanoma, when we know it is "less than .2mm".

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 SSF1 (depth of invasion) to 019 [.19mm]. For any case with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm, the T category will be determined using CS extension and SSF2 [ulceration]. All cases with an SSF1 code in the range of 001-100 mm will map to a T1 (either T1NOS, T1a or T1b).

 2007
20071068 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Prostate: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded for a case in which the pathology specimen showed adenocarcinoma in 20% of the tissue and sarcoma in 50% of the tissue? See Discussion.

Patient has TURP. The final path diagnosis is adenocarcinoma in 20% of tissue and sarcoma in 50% of tissue.

Because it is unknown whether there is a single or multiple tumors, rule M1 (Other Sites) is used which states the case is to be abstracted as a single primary.

Single invasive histology rules are followed to rule H16, but table 2 does not contain a mixed code for this situation, even though ICD-O-3 has a code 8933/3 for "adenosarcoma". Therefore, rule H17 is applied that states to use the highest code, which in this case would be 8800/3 [Sarcoma, NOS]. Is this correct?

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, code as two primaries, one adenocarcinoma and the other sarcoma.

This is two tumors (adenocarcinoma and separate sarcoma) until proven otherwise. Do not code as adenosarcoma, as this is a gyn-specific diagnosis. Adenosarcoma of the prostate is not a recognized entity in the WHO classification of prostate tumors.

 2007
20071089 CS Extension--Ovary: Are "non-invasive implants" identified per pathology coded differently than "invasive implants"?

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, non-invasive and invasive implants are not handled differently in collaborative staging for ovary.

 2007
20071087 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted when bilateral breasts contain DCIS? Is a physician statement referring to this situation as one primary ignored? See Discussion. Patient has microcalcifications both breasts. Has bilateral mastectomy. Path report states Left breast multifocal DCIS predominantly micropapillary. Right breast two foci of DCIS micropapillary.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

There are two primaries in this case.

Using the 2007 MP/H rules for breast, go to the multiple tumors module and start with Rule M4. Stop at rule M7. Tumors on both sides (right and left) are multple primaries.

Always use the 2007 Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries. Do not use the physician statement.

 2007
20071041

Reportability/Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is pyridoxine-responsive sideroblastic anemia (SA) reportable and is pyridoxine coded as chemotherapy for SA and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS)? See Discussion.

Patient has refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts on bone marrow path. The physician mentions it might be due to pyridoxine deficiency. Per the SEER*Rx, pyridoxine (aka Vitamin B6) is not coded as treatment. What causes RARS and SA? Is pyridoxine treatment for either disease process? Or is the pyridoxine just treating one aspect of the anemia? The patient has no other treatment but this.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal.

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.

 2007
20071093 Reportability--Brain and CNS: In addition to Schwannoma, are there additional types of benign tumors that arise in peripheral nerves along the spinal cord that are not reportable? See Discussion.

Are neuroepitheliomatous neoplasms such as ganglioneuroma, gangliocytoma, ganglioglioma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Are nerve sheath tumors such as neuroma occurring along the spinal cord reportable? Angioma?

Reference: SINQ 20051071; Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, NPCR Training Materials 2004

Reportability depends on the location of the tumor. Tumors in the following sites are reportable:

  • C700 - C709

  • C710 - C719

  • C720 - C729

  • C751 - C753

    • Benign and borderline tumors of the peripheral nerves (C47_), including peripheral nerves along the spinal cord, are not reportable.

    Please note: spinal schwannomas arising in the nerve root or spinal dura are reportable.

    		 2007
    		20071070 CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.

    Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.

    According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.

    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 as 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.

    Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.

    		 2007
    		20071081 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?

    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.Record the IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.

    		 2007