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: 02/12/2026 06:54 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081056 MP/H Rules--Lung: In reference to lung, SINQ 20071028 states "'nodule' is not an equivalent term for tumor, mass, lesion, or neoplasm." However, slide 5 for the MPH lung section of "Beyond the Basics" states "we use the words 'mass, nodule and lesion' interchangeably." Which is it?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

For the purpose of applying the Lung MP/H rules, the word "Nodule" can be used interchageably with "Tumor," "Mass," "Lesion" and "Neoplasm." HOWEVER, this does NOT apply to casefinding or staging.

This revision will be added to the next version of the MP/H rules. Sinq question 20071028 will be revised.

 2008
20081062 MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.

Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.

Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.

Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.

Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract as separate primaries:

  • 12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)

  • 12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)

    • Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.

    		2008
    		20081055 MP/H Rules--Melanoma: How many primaries are represented if subsequent to a diagnosis of malignant melanoma of skin of left thorax in April 2006, a metastatic melanoma is discovered in the soft tissue of the abdomen and in the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the groin in late 2007? See Discussion.

    4/20/06: skin left lateral thorax, excision: Pedunculated malignant melanoma, 0.5 CM in height, Clark's level 3, Breslow depth 0.5 CM, superficial ulceration noted. No host response. Margins clear.

    6/19/06: Four sentinel LNs negative. Interferon therapy.

    10/30/07: FNA of soft tissue, left lower abdomen: consistent with metastatic melanoma.

    12/20/07 A) sentinel lymph node, left groin, biopsy: No morphologic or immunophenotypic findings support for metastatic melanoma (see comment). B) skin and subcutaneous tissue, left groin, excisional biopsy: Metastatic malignant melanoma (see comment). Lymphovascular invasion identified. Margins free of melanoma. Melanoma 1.5 MM from the closest designated deep margin and 5 MM from the designated 6:00 margin. C) skin, left groin/additional inferior margin, excisional biopsy: No significant histopathologic abnormality. No evidence of villus or melanoma or malignancy. Comment: A 0.8 cm metastatic nodular melanoma is present in the adipose tissue. The underlying skin is unremarkable. There is no evidence of ulceration, melanocytic lesion, melanoma in situ, or regression of melanoma. Block A1 is sent for immunohistochemical studies. The immunophenotypic findings provide no support for metastatic melanoma in lymph node. Please see the immunohistochemical study. The primary MD states "Recurrent intransit mets, left groin."

    		 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is a single primary, melanoma of the thorax 4/20/06. The subsequent reports mention metastases, but do not document another primary. Do not count metastatic lesions as new primaries. 2008
    		20081037 Extension/CS Extension--Prostate: Do the prostate guidelines used for EOD still apply to cases diagnosed 2004 forward?

    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.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward, refer to the Collaborative Staging manual.

    The 2004 CS guidelines have been agreed upon by all standard setters and have been reviewed by the COC/AJCC urologists.

    Note: Do not use the SEER EOD guidelines with Collaborative Staging.

    		 2008
    		20081088 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx: How should these fields be coded for an in situ diagnosis when the patient was diagnosed by biopsy only and there is no information in the chart regarding an evaluation of lymph nodes or metastatic sites? See Discussion.

    In reference to the case below, does it make a difference if the CS T stage is known based on the primary excision but there is no clinical information in the record regarding the nodes or metastasis evaluation.

    This scenario is seen on outpatient records of breast biopsies and melanoma excisions; i.e., punch bx followed by gross excision of the lesion but the medical record contains no clinical information or statement of everything else normal.

    I&R Question 17625 2/16/2006

    A patient was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by needle core biopsy of the right breast. There was no further information in the chart stating if or where the patient went for staging work-up and treatment. What are the codes for CS Extension, CS Regional Lymph Nodes and CS Distant Mets at Dx?

    I&R Answer: Sufficient tissue must be taken to determine the T category. If this is the case, CS Extension = 00.

    Unless the physician makes the statement that the physical exam is negative, code the CS Regional Lymph Nodes = 99 CS Distant Mets at DX = 99.

    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 CS Lymph Nodes and CS Mets at Dx 00 [None] for an in situ diagnosis with no other information.

    The CS instructions state that CS LN's should be coded 00 for in situ because in situ by definition is non-invasive. The same logic applies to CS mets in the case of in situ. The I&R answer will be revised.

    		 2008
    		20081131 MP/H Rules--Colon: What histology would you assign to a single tumor with the histology 'well differentiated mucinous cystadenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma confined to the appendix'? Does rule H4 apply to this diagnosis or should we continue on in the rules to H14 and code the higher histology?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H4.

    Stop at the first rule that applies to the case. Rule H4 is the first rule that applies.

    The polyp rule, H4, comes before many of the other colon rules because it is important to know that the malignancy originated in a polyp.

    		 2008
    		20081016

    Laterality--Brain and CNS: When a meningioma extends to both right and left sides, is laterality coded 4 for bilateral or 9 for midline? See Discussion.

    Operative Findings: Bilateral frontal craniotomies for excision of giant meningioma which extended onto optic chiasm.

    Path: Bifrontal tumor, 6.5 cm meningotheliomatous meningioma.

    		 If it is not possible to determine whether the meningioma originated on the left or the right, assign code 4 [Bilateral involvement, lateral origin unknown; stated to be single primary]. 2008
    		20081126

    MP/H Rules--Brain and CNS: Are stigmata of neurofibromatosis in the brain reportable neurofibromatosis lesions? See Discussion.

    Reference: SINQ 20051108; SINQ 20061018 Three year old patient with history of neurofibromatosis 1. 3/05 MRI of the brain showed right optic nerve glioma. It also showed heterogeneous high t2 signal in the middle cerebellar peduncles and near the genu of the internal capsules bilaterally are stigmata of neurofibromatosis type I. 3/08 MRI showed new mass suspicious for glioma in the hypothalamus. Clinical diagnosis is benign glioma secondary to diagnosis of neurofibromatosis. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this patient? Should the matrix principle be invoked for the second glioma? Should the behavior code for the glioma be 0?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 through 2017

    Accession NF (9540/1) when there is CNS tumor -- a glioma or some other intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Stigmata of NF are reportable when the stigmata themselves are reportable tumors. For example, glioma, or another intracranial/intraspinal tumor. Do not report sitgmata that are only termed "stigmata seen on MRI," for example, without other reportable terminology.

    Do NOT accession NF (9540/1) when there is only peripheral nerve/nervous system involvement.

    Accession the neurofibromatosis itself only once per patient. Accession any initial neoplasm in the CNS separately. Abstract and code any subsequent CNS neoplasms according to the multiple primary brain rules.

    Accession three primaries for the case described above.

    1. Neurofibromatosis (C729 9540/1)
    • Optic nerve glioma (C723 9421/3)--> see below.
    • Hypothalamus glioma (C710 9380/0)

    --> Optic nerve gliomas associated with NF are pilocytic astrocytomas. Code pilocytic astrocytoma as 9421/3 in North America.

    For cases diagnosed 2018 or later

    See the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Non-Malignant CNS tumors.

    		 2008
    		20081024 CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is SSF6 coded when CS tumor size is coded from a clinical report, not from pathology? See Discussion. A breast ultrasound displays a 2 cm tumor. Core biopsy diagnosis is lobular carcinoma in situ. No further record for patient. Tumor size coded to 020. Should SSF 6 be coded to 010 "Entire tumor reported as in situ (no invasive component reported)" because it was pathologically confirmed, or to 888 because size was coded based on a clinical exam - the ultrasound?

    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 SSF6 888 [Clinical tumor size coded]. When the size recorded in CS Tumor Size is not determined pathologically, 888 must be coded in SSF6. Note: The code in SSF 6 pertains to pathologic tumor size. It describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded.

    		 2008
    		20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

    Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

    Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

    The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

    Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

    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.

    		 2008