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 11:02 AM

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
20031021 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the anatomical distinction among tonsillar fossa, tonsillar pillar, and tonsil NOS? Operative findings describe a right tonsil three times the size of the left tonsil. Tonsil is dissected from the tonsillar fossa. There appeared to be no involvement of tumor below the tonsillar capsule.

The tonsil lies in an indentation called the tonsillar fossa. The tonsillar fossa is bordered on either side by the tonsillar pillars. The tonsillar pillars are part of the supporting structure of the throat opening.

Code C09.9 [Tonsil NOS] as the primary site for the case above.

 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
20021052

EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?

1) Stricture of the common bile duct

2) Common bile duct is narrowed

3) Common bile duct is obstructed

4) Common bile duct dilation

5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct

6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.

 2002
20020019

Reportability: Are the terms "evolving melanoma in situ" or "evolving melanoma" reportable diagnoses?

According to SEER's melanoma expert, these cases are not reportable because there is no standard definition for the term "evolving" melanoma.

 2002
20020008 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: Does the presence of axillary lymph node(s) in a "simple mastectomy" specimen impact the coding of the Surgery of Primary Site field for breast primaries?

Yes. Determine whether there is, in fact, at least a portion of axillary tissue present. If axillary lymph nodes (not internal mammary nodes) are present in the specimen, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 51 [Modified Radical Mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast]. If there are no axillary lymph nodes present in the specimen, code the Surgery to Primary Site field to 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast].

2002
20021031 Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. 2002
20021141 EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.

 2002
20021005 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for an extranodal lymphoma that has more than one tumor in the primary site OR has intraluminal extension from the primary site to an adjacent organ? See discussion.

1. Small lymphocytic lymphoma with 2 tumors in the stomach.

2. Lymphoma involving the cecum and ileum.

3. Lymphoma of the fundus of stomach with extension into the esophagus.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Using the EOD scheme for lymphoma, code the Extension field to 11 [Localized involvement of a single extralymphatic organ or site; Stage IE] for all 3 of these cases.

For the stomach lymphoma: There are 2 areas of lymphoma, but it is still confined to one site.

For the other 2 lymphomas: Intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the lymphoma never equals extension. The same phrase that was added to code 21, "Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues", will be added to code 11 in the Collaborative Stage System. Neither "mucosal spread to a contiguous organ" or "direct extension into a nearby organ" affect staging. Both are still coded to 11 as long as there are no other sites of lymphoma involvement.

EOD code 80 is poorly written. It does not mean diffuse invovement or multiple tumors in a single organ but rather "diffuse disease in two or more organs."

 2002
20021051 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion. For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.

If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].

However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).

 2002