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: 12/18/2025 17:25 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

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."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

 2009
20091015 MP/H Rules/Histology--Gallbladder: What histology is coded for a tumor described as "90% high grade neuroendocrine ca, large cell type; and 10% low grade adenocarcinoma, conventional type"?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

MP/H Rule H17 for Other Sites applies. Code the histology 8140 [adenocarcinoma].

The ICD-O-3 code for large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is 8013 and the code for adenocarcinoma is 8140.

 2009
20091100

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type," arising in the skin of the lower leg? See Discussion.

In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word "acral" lentiginous melanoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2020

Assign 8742/2 [lentigo maligna] to "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type."

Acral lentiginous melanoma is not the same as melanoma, lentiginous type. "Acral lentiginous melanoma," 8744, should be used only if the report states acral lentiginous melanoma or malignant melanoma, acral lentiginous type.

Acral lentiginous melanoma most often occurs on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hands.

 2009
20091123

Reportability: Is a tumor reportable if the pathology report indicates a non-reportable diagnosis at the time the specimen is removed but subsequent clinical statements state the patient had a reportable tumor? See Discussion.

The 2007 SEER Manual (page 3) states that cases diagnosed clinically are reportable. Exception 2 states if enough time has passed that it is reasonable to assume the physician has seen the negative pathology report, but the clinician continues to call this a reportable disease, accession the case.

SEER reporting guidelines state that severe dysplasia is not reportable, however, many clinicians regard it to be equivalent to carcinoma in situ.

Example 1: In 09-2007 the pathology report for excisional biopsy of right floor of mouth states the final diagnosis is severe dysplasia. At the time, the case is not accessioned based on non-reportable pathology. Patient is subsequently admitted in 3-09. According to the clinical history the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in 2007 and treated with laser. Is this reportable? If yes, how is behavior to be coded? How is "Ambiguous Terminology at Diagnosis" to be coded?

Example 2: In 2-08, the pathology report for a punch biopsy of a skin lesion states the final diagnosis is atypical melanocytic hyperplasia. In 3-08, patient is admitted for re-excision. The clinical diagnosis states re-excision being done for melanoma in situ.

Reference: SINQ 20061123

A tumor that is non-reportable based on the pathology report diagnosis should not be accessioned if later clinician statements mistakenly refer to it as a reportable tumor. The exception in the 2007 SEER manual on page 3 is intended to allow the registrar to accession a case when the clinician actually disagrees with the pathology report and clinically diagnoses a reportable tumor.

 2009
20091101 CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Melanoma: How should these fields be coded for a case that is an unknown primary site melanoma with liver involvement and a positive axillary lymph node?

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 regional lymph nodes positive 01 [one positive lymph node] and regional lymph nodes examined 01 [one lymph node examined] (assuming the positive node was the only node examined).

If the only lymph node involvement is the positive axillary lymph node, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a regional lymph node. When only one chain of lymph nodes is involved with metastatic melanoma, the metastatic cells had to come from skin with direct drainage to those lymph nodes.

 2009
20091028

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.

1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.

According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

 2009
20091049 P/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung/Breast: Can we assume that a current tissue specimen is a recurrence of previous primary if a pathologist states that he has compared the current specimen with the slides from the prior tumor and concludes that the current tumor is "similar" to a previous tumor? See Discussion.

The MP/H rule general information section states that we do not accession a second primary unless a pathologist compares the current tumor to the original tumor and states that the current tumor is a recurrence of cancer from the previous primary. In our experience it is rare that a pathologist speaks so bluntly. They frequently hedge somewhat.

Are the following statements worded strongly enough for us to make the assumption that the current tumor is a recurrence of patient's previous cancer?

Example 1: Pathologist states: Patient's prior lung tumor reviewed. The tumor in the current case (left lower lobe) shows similarities to some areas of the patient's prior left lower lobe tumor.

Example 2: Pathologist states: The focus of ductal carcinoma in the mastectomy specimen does resemble the carcinoma in the previous partial mastectomy specimen. (Slides reviewed).

All pathologists do not use words in the same way. Therefore, we will not provide a list of specific words to accept or not to accept in order to determine recurrence. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, do not base your decision about recurrence on words such as "similar" or "resembles." If the pathologist believes two or more tumors are the same or believes one is a recurrence of another after comparison, accept it. When pathologists believe that two or more tumors are not the same or believe that one is not a recurrence of another, there is usually a strong statement indicating that opinion. 2009
20091018 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/CS Extension: How many primaries are to be accessioned when tumors are present bilaterally in the pleura and fallopian tubes? See Discussion.

For both pleura and fallopian tube, the MP/H rules indicate that bilateral involvement of these sites should be coded as multiple primaries. However, both of these sites have CS extension codes that classify the contralateral disease as regional extension.

Is a case described as a left sided pleural mesothelioma that has right sided pleural disease coded as one or two primaries? How is CS coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For a pleural or fallopian tube primary, if there is tumor(s) on the left and separate tumor(s) on the right and neither is stated to be metastatic from the other, abstract as multiple primaries according to rule M8 for other sites. If both sides are involved, but there is only one tumor, rule M2 for other sites applies and this is a single primary. Code each primary separately in CS.

 2009