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: 02/26/2026 15:14 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081081 Reportability: If a dermatopathologist refers to an atypical fibroxanthoma as a malignant process, but the ICD-O-3 indicates it is a borderline process, is this a reportable case? See Discussion. "Final Diagnosis: Surface of ulcerated histologically malignant spindle cell neoplasm, consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma. Note: An exhaustive immunohistochemical work-up shows no melanocytic, epithelial or vascular differentiation. Atypical fibroxanthoma is a superficial form of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma." The pathologist has the final say on behavior. In this case, the pathologist states that this tumor is malignant in the final diagnosis. Therefore, this case is reportable. 2008
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

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
20081121

Multiple primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded in this situation?

How would the bone marrow involvement by only NHL be handled? Composite lymphoma (9596) as defined by SEER and ICD-O is NHL and HD in one node which fits the final impression on the removed cervical node. See Discussion.

 Patient presented with cervical, supraclavicular & superior mediastinal lymphadenopathy. A cervical node was excised for pathological review. The final impression on that node was Composite lymphoma characterized by (1) Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma [HD] (2) CLL/SLL [NHL]. Then, a bone marrow aspirate/bx was performed revealing CLL/SLL [NHL].

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This is a single primary. The histology code is 9596/3 [composite Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma].

According to the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9596/3 followed by 9670/3 is one primary.

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
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
20081086 Reportability: Is a case reportable if a benign diagnosis is obtained on a resection that follows a positive needle aspiration? See Discussion. Fine needle aspiration of the thyroid diagnosis was "positive for malignant cells, favor medullary carcinoma." Subsequent thyroidectomy was reported as benign. This case is reportable. The cytology is positive. Report as medulary carcinoma of the thyroid. 2008
20081073

CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

 2008
20081019 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries are abstracted for a patient with a 1995 periaortic lymph node biopsy showing lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse small cleaved probable intermediate grade B cell positive, followed by stomach biopsies on 6/18/05 showing diffuse large B cell lymphoma and on 6/24/05 showing malignant lymphoma, tumor cells positive for [CD20] B cell respectively?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:There are two primaries:

  • Lymphocytic lymphoma, diffuse, intermediate in 1995

  • Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in June, 2005

    • According to the Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table, 9673 [Malignant lymphoma, lymphocytic, diffuse, intermediate] and 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] are separate primaries. Again, according to the table, 9680 [Malignant lymphoma, large B-Cell, diffuse] and 9591 [Malignant lymphoma, non-Hodgkin, NOS] are the same primary.

    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
    		20081119

    Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.

    A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.

    Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)

    When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

    The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."

    The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.

    		 2008
    		20081134

    MP/H Rules--Breast: For tubulolobular carcinoma, do we use 8522? See Discussion.

    Path comment: This mixed variant of ductal and lobular carcinoma has been called in the past tubulolobular carcinoma, however, more recently is a mixed pattern of ductal and lobular carcinoma and not a variant of lobular carcinoma.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, use rule H18 and assign code 8524 [lobular mixed with other types of carcinoma]. According to the MP/H rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct or lobular. This is based on the latest WHO classification of breast tumors.

    The combination histology of tubular and lobular will be reviewed during the upcoming revision of the MP/H rules.

    		 2008
    		20081124

    CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is CS Extension coded for a malignant meningioma that demonstrates extension into adjacent brain tissue?

    For malignant brain tumors, code 60 represents extension into the meninges. Would code 60 be the correct code for extension from a malignant meningioma into brain tissue?

    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 60 for malignant meningioma with extension to adjacent brain tissue.

    According to the I&R, this section of CS was taken directly from SEER Summary Staging, since AJCC does not have a staging system for these tumors.

    		 2008