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: 03/01/2026 02:21 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061037 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.

Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"

A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."

These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.

According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006
20061091

Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?

Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.

 2006
20061138 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded when a nipple biopsy demonstrates Paget disease and a separate biopsy in the same breast demonstrates inflammatory breast carcinoma? See Discussion. Should Paget disease be coded as the histology because it has a higher histology code than inflammatory carcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the inflammatory carcinoma as one primary and the Paget disease as a separate primary. The first three digits of the histology codes for these histologies are different (8530 and 8540). Therefore, these are separate primaries.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2006
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
20061118 Primary Site--Unknown & Ill-defined Site: What is the primary site code for multiple malignant rhabdoid tumors (extra renal) in a newborn infant?

Search for additional information on the location of the primary in this case. A tissue specimen (biopsy) is required for a diagnosis of rhabdoid. Additionaly, there should be scans describing any tumors located in sites other than the biopsy site. If the biopsy site is not assumed to be a metastatic site and is the only location of tumor, code the site of the biopsy as the primary site.

If it is not possible to obtain further information for this case, code the primary site C809 [Unknown primary site].

According to our pathologist consultant, extra-renal rhabdoid tumors have been described in organ sites (liver, GI tract, thyroid, CNS, skin, to name a few) as well as in the soft tissue. Many of the organ site tumors are multiple/multifocal, so multiple tumors in one organ do not necessarily imply metastatic disease and therefore unknown primary site.

 2006
20061063 CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.

1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?

Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?

If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)

2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))

a. Heart problems?

b. The location of the pleural effusion?

i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?

ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?

iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?

iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?

SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION

Note 6: Pleural Effusion.

A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.

B. Note from AJCC manual: Most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor.

In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.

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.

1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.

2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.

 2006
20061146 Primary Site--Hematopoietic, NOS: Are there any guidelines for the use of topography code C420 [blood] rather than C421 [bone marrow], or C424 [Hematopoietic system, NOS] for hematopoietic diseases other than Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are no specific guidelines concerning code C420 versus C421 or C424, other than the suggested topography codes in ICD-O-3 (see Rule H). The Hematopoietic task force is in the early phases of developing guidelines for these diseases. This issue will be presented to the task force for their consideration.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006
20061054 First Course Treatment/Chemotherapy: Is adriamycin used in a chemoembolization procedure coded as chemotherapy? Code as chemotherapy only when a chemotherapeutic agent is used, such as adriamycin. Do not automatically code chemoembolization as chemotherapy. 2006
20061093 Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.

Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.

 Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false. 2006
20061141 Reportability--Leukemia: Is the diagnosis "a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells" reportable if it is from a flow cytometry procedure performed on a non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy specimen? See Discussion.

Pt had only a bone marrow Bx done at the hospital.

Bone marrow biopsy and aspirate:

Peripheral blood showing mild relative lymphocytosis and mild relative neutropenia.

Normocellular bone marrow (50%) with mild eosinophilia. No conclusive morphologic evidence of a neoplastic process.

Flow cytometry of the marrow shows a minority abnormal T-cell population (2-3%) with phenotypic features of large granular lymphocyte leukemia cells. PCR is positive for a clonal T-cell population. The significance of these findings is unclear.

COMMENT: Flow cytometry, PCR and morphologic correlation were performed at [names removed]. The significance of a minimal, clonal, large granulocyte leukemia population absent absolute lymphocytosis is unclear. Positive results for a T-cell receptor PCR study in the setting of mild leukopenia alone is reportedly relatively common and usually regarded as nonspecific. In essence, this could be characterized as a small, monoclonal T-cell proliferation of uncertain significance associated with mild leukopenia. Appropriate follow up is suggested.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not report this type of case until there is a definitive reportable diagnosis. Based on the information provided, this case is not yet reportable. It could develop into a reportable case in the future.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006