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 12:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081054

First course treatment: Is subsequent treatment with R-ICE first course or second course therapy if the patient underwent ABVD x2 cycles and subsequent imaging showed no response to treatment and evidence of progression [new adenopathy] for a lymphoma case? See Discussion.

Patient was initially diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Nodular Sclerosing on 3/3/06.

Patient received ABVD x 2 cycles. Had disease reassessed in May, 2006, no response to treatment, showed evidence of progression (new adenopathy). Patient's pathology from 3/06 was sent for consult: Diagnosis was Hodgkin with some overlapping features of B-cell Non Hodgkin Lymphoma. Treated 5/18/06 with R-ICE FOR NHL.

The R-ICE treatment in this case is not part of the first course. Documentation of treatment failure and/or disease progression signifies the end of the first course of treatment.

 2008
20081109

MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.

A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.

The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.

Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.

 2008
20081067 CS Extension--Lymphoma: When does the coding change take effect that is referred to in SEER edit IF195, that states localized lymphoma in primary sites C024, C090-099, C111, C142, C172, C181, and C379 must be coded to CS extension 10, and cannot be coded to extension 11? See Discussion. CS version 1.04 does have a new note 1 in the lymphoma scheme that appears this coding change. In the past, we used code 11 with these sites for localized lymphoma and SINQ 20061088 confirms this line of thinking.

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.

This change was made with the release of CS version 01.04.00 on October 31, 2007. The rules went into effect for cases diagnosed January 1, 2008 and later. A note was added to SINQ 20061088 stating that the answer pertains to cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2008.

 2008
20081002 Primary site: What is the correct primary site code for angiosarcoma of the spleen with mets to bone marrow C42.2 vs C49x? See Discussion.

Robbins Pathology states the following about liver angiosarcomas: Hepatic angiosarcomas are rare but of interest because they are associated with distinct carcinogens, including arsenic (exposure to arsenical pesticides), Thorocast (a radioactive contrast medium previously widely used in radiology), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (widely used in plastics). The increased frequency of angiosarcomas among works in the PVC industry is one of the truly well-documented instances of chemical carcinogenesis in humans. With all these agents, there is a very long latent period of many years between exposure and the development of tumors.

Could the same apply to the spleen?

 Code C422 [Spleen] as the primary site for angiosarcoma of spleen with metastasis to bone marrow. 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
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
20081003 Reportability--Brain and CNS: For von Hippel Lindau disease with multiple hemagioblastomas, is each hemangioblastoma reportable as a new primary? See Discussion. Diagnosis of von Hippel-Landau disease, multiple brain surgeries between 2002 and 2007 for recurring hemangioblastomas, 9161/1. This disease manifests as multiple (recurring) hemangioblastomas.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

If the hemagioblastomas occur in sites with different ICD-O-3 topography codes, they are separate primaries.

Please note: Rule M4 in the Benign & Borderline Intracranial and CNS Tumors MP/H coding rules on the SEER website has been corrected to read:

Tumors with ICD-O-3 topography codes that are different at the second (Cxx), third (Cxx) and/or fourth (Cxx) characters are multiple primaries.(http://www.seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/benign_brain.html)

 2008
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
20081057 CS Extension--Lung: Chest CT shows segmental atelectasis (CS EXT code 40), but patient had Left Lower Lobe lobectomy/Lymph Node dissection with no involvment outside the lobe (pleura and all margins neg). Do we still code the atelectasis (CS Ext 40) over confined to lung (CS EXT code 10)?

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 40 [Atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar region but does not involve the entire lung (or atelectasis/obstructive pneumonitis, NOS)].

CS extension code 10 does not apply when any condition described in codes 20-80 exists.

 2008
20081101

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.

In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.

 2008