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: 09/18/2025 02:37 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091035 CS Extension--Ovary: What code is used to capture omental caking?

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.The term "omental caking" refers to a thickened omentum. In the case of ovarian cancer, omental caking is always indicative of involvement of the omentum. The omentum is an abdominal structure for the purposes of CS extension. Assign the appropriate code between 70-73.

When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state omental caking, code 71 would be best. When there are no size measurements on the operative report or scan or elsewhere, there is not enough information to assign 72. The choice of code between 70 and 73 will depend on the details of the specific case.

 2009
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 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
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
20091072 Histology--Brain and CNS: How is histology coded for a "rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor" of the fourth ventricle?

Assign histology code 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS].

Rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the 4th ventricle is a new WHO entity. There is no current ICD-O-3 code for this. The best code available at this time is 9505/1.

 2009
20091026 CS Extension--Extramedullary Plasmacytoma: Under what circumstance would CS extension code 80 be used in a case of extramedullary plasmacytoma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 extension code 80 [Systemic disease] for extramedullary plasmacytoma involving more than one site. Use code 80 when extramedullary plasmacytoma is NOT single, solitary, unifocal, isolated, mono-ostotic or localized. Code 80 can also be used when the bone marrow is involved but the plasma cells are <10%.

Do not apply EOD instructions to CS.

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.

 2009
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
20091038 CS Tumor Size--Breast: Do the tumor size instructions in the CS Manual take priority over those in the SEER manual? See Discussion. In regards to priority order of sources to be used in coding size for breast and lung, we are instructed to use the site-specific instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual over the general instructions in the CS Manual (see SINQ 20061109). Thus, physical exam size would be used over an imaging size. I&R question 2389 instructs registrars to use an imaging size over a physical exam size. This inconsistency creates confusion for them. Do the answers given in I&R not take into account the information in the SEER Manual? As a SEER Registry, which rules do we tell our hospitals to use? Are ACoS accredited hospitals required to use I&R over SINQ?

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.The current SEER instructions and the CS instructions for source of tumor size information are the same. The tumor size priority source instruction in the 2004 SEER manual is not included in the 2007 SEER manual. SINQ 20061109 has been updated for clarification. There is no conflict between SEER instructions and I&R instructions at this time. SEER and the CoC collaborate, endeavoring to provide consistent instructions and to resolve inconsistencies.

 2009
20091020 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How do you code histology for a breast tumor when the comment section of the pathology report compares the current resected specimen with a previous needle biopsy? See Discussion. A single tumor is described on the breast needle biopsy as "infiltrating lobular carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ" and on the lumpectomy specimen as "infiltrating duct carcinoma." Per the COMMENT section on the pathology report: "Tumor resection was compared to previous needle biopsy. The appropriate designation is probably a terminal duct/lobular lesion." For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8522 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] according to Breast MP/H rule H16. The comment on the lumpectomy pathology report takes both the lumpectomy information and the biopsy information into consideration. "Probable" is an ambiguous term used to code histology. 2009
20091030 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Thyroid: How many primaries should be coded if there is a clinical diagnosis of recurrent thyroid carcinoma in 3/08 in a patient with a history of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 1995 with a 2002 clinical recurrence? See Discussion. Thyroid carcinoma diagnosed in 11/95 and treated with total thyroidectomy (although path report only mentions the left lobe) and ablation. Elevated thyroglobulin level in 11/02, stated to have recurrent carcinoma and again treated with ablation. History on this case states patient had a near total thyroidectomy at diagnosis. Patient is seen again at a third hospital 3/08. Diagnosis again is recurrent carcinoma apparently because of a thyroid mass that is palpable. No treatment was performed and patient expired 4/08. Is this a new primary because of MP/H rule M10?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The pathology report takes precedence over the other information when there is a discrepancy. Based on the information available, only the left thyroid lobe was removed 11/95.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to evaluate new tumors. If the 3/08 diagnosis represents a new tumor, use the MP/H rules. If the diagnosis in 3/08 is not new tumor, the MP/H rules do not apply.

For this case, a new tumor in 3/08 would be a new primary using rule M10 for Other Sites.

 2009