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: 04/25/2026 20:50 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031100

Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.

Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.

Updated answer July 2024

No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.

 2003
20031077 Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology "mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma?" Is mucin-producing synonymous with mucinous?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 8253 [Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous]. Mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma is best classified in ICD-O-3 as Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous.

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.

 2003
20031067 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a vulvar tumor diagnosed by FISH analysis as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma?" See Description. A literature search relates soft tissue malignancy described as "extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma/PNET." Neither are compatible with site.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 9260/3 [Ewing sarcoma]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma (EOE). Ignore the topography code listed in ICD-O and use the code for the primary site (vulva).

Site codes associated with morphology codes in the ICD-O are the most common sites and are not intended to limit coding only to those sites.

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.

 2003
20031029 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.

Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.

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.

 2003
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 2003
20031162 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS/Lymphoma: How many primaries are represented and what are the histologies for "B-cell lymphoma with immunophenotypic findings consistent with hairy cell leukemia" found on a bone marrow biopsy? See Description. Pathologist completed AJCC lymphoma staging form indicating this case should be abstracted as a lymphoma.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract as one primary, 9591/3 [B-cell lymphoma, NOS]. The bone marrow diagnosis indicates that the main/definite diagnosis is B-cell lymphoma, with a lesser indication of hairy cell leukemia. Both of these are mature B-cell neoplasms according to the WHO histological classification.

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.

 2003
20031030 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19?

Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum.

According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower.

 2003
20031138 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. 2003
20031114 EOD-Extension--Colon: How is this field coded for an appendical primary when the appendix has ruptured and intrapentoneal fluid is positive? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD extension as 85 [Metastasis]. Positive intraperitoneal fluid is equivalent to distant metastasis (implantation) for colon, including appendix, primaries. 2003
20031170 Terminology, NOS/Recurrence/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Is the term "residual disease" equivalent to "recurrence"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient underwent excision and re-excision of lentigo maligna in 1998. Final path showed close but negative margins. In 1999 a biopsy of a brown patch (over the scar) in the same location was done. Pathology reported residual lentigo maligna. Is the 1999 melanoma a new primary because it was diagnosed more than two months after the first melanoma and there is no mention of recurrence? Or is the term "residual" another way of saying recurrence?

Example 2. In 1999, patient underwent excisonal biopsy of intraductal carcinoma of the right breast, followed by radiation therapy. In 2000, mammogram showed calcifications in right breast. Biopsy was done with path showing residual ductal carcinoma in situ. There is no mention of recurrence. Is this one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

According to our pathologist consultant, "residual" disease indicates incomplete eradication of the original disease process. Residual means that the disease process was not completely removed/eradicated in the initial therapy. Therefore cells from the original primary were never completely removed or destroyed.

In each example above, this is not a recurrence per se but rather

progression of disease. Do not abstract the latter diagnosis as a new primary.

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.

 2003