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: 06/27/2026 05:00 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061050 Neoadjuvant Treatment/Date Therapy Initiated--Breast: If Tamoxifen has been used since 2000 for the treatment of hyperplasia, should it be coded as neoadjuvant treatment for a 2004 diagnosis of breast cancer? Do not code tamoxifen given for hyperplasia as treatment for breast cancer. In this case, tamoxifen started four years before the breast cancer diagnosis -- not treatment for breast cancer. 2006
20061129 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion. Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2006
20061075 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: Is a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides followed a year later with a biopsy proven diagnosis of anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma stated to represent a transformation of the previous mycosis fungoides reportable as one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code the histology according to the original diagnosis, mycosis fungoides. The physician states that this one disease process started as mycosis fungoides and progressed into lymphoma. A physician's statement has priority over other sources in determining the number of hematopoietic primaries.

In October 2006, a committee will begin working on multple primaries among hematopoietic diseases. The committee will provide further guidance on dealing with disease transformation and other issues.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006
20061137

Reportability/Grade, Differentiation: Does the term "grade 0" refer to differentiation or does its use as a modifying phrase in the final diagnosis of "grade 0 immature teratoma" impact reportability?

Regarding the term "grade 0" for an immature teratoma, determine whether the pathologist is using that term to describe the primary tumor or its implants. The term can be used to describe both situations.

An immature teratoma (IT) may have grade 0 (benign) implants. Grade 0 implants may affect the prognosis and treatment, but the primary tumor (IT) would still be malignant and therefore reportable. If grade 0 pertains to the primary tumor (as opposed to implants) it is benign, and therefore not reportable.

 2006
20061093 Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Is a stereotactic biopsy that is "focally suspicious for DCIS" reportable if it is followed by a negative excisional biopsy? See Discussion.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.a, the case is reportable based on the ambiguous term "suspicious" for DCIS.

Per the 2004 SEER manual page 4, 1.c, use these terms when screening diagnoses on pathology reports, operative reports, scans, mammograms, and other diagnostic testing other than tumor markers.

Note: If the ambiguous diagnosis is proven to be not reportable by biopsy, cytology, or physician's statement, do not accession the case.

 Do not accession this case. The needle localization excisional biopsy was performed to further evaluate the suspicious finding found on stereotactic biopsy. The suspicious diagnosis was proven to be false. 2006
20061095

First Course Treatment: If an "aromatase inhibitor" used as a complement to Tamoxifen is treatment, how should it be coded?

When an aromatase inhibitor is part of the planned first course of therapy, code it under hormone treatment.

When a change of drug is PLANNED, it is part of the same course even if subcategories change. This is the usual situation with Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (for example: Femara). The switch to Femara is planned, so it is not a new course. When a drug change happens that is not planned, it is still the same course if both drugs are in the same category and subcategory. An unplanned drug change to a different subcategory would be a new course.

 2006
20061091

Reportability--Ovary: Is an "aggressive adult granulosa cell tumor with one of two lymph nodes positive for metastatic granulosa cell tumor" reportable?

Malignant granulosa cell tumor is reportable. The case described above is malignant as proven by metastasis to the lymph node.

 2006
20061142 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Skin: How many cases are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded for cases in which a fibrosarcoma arises in or transforms from a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans? See Discussion.

1. If the fibrosarcoma occurs after DFP, and is called metastatic, is it a recurrence or is it a new primary? Example: Pt diagnosed in 7/05 with a high grade fibrosarcoma arising in a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. The path indicated "The presence of high grade fibrosarcoma, the extent of the tumor necrosis and the mitotic rate are all adverse prognostic findings that indicate a significant risk for mets." The patient had a recurrence in 8/06 called a low grade fibrosarcoma mets from prev." The DFP code is 8832/3 and a fibrosarcoma code is 8810/3. Our pathologist feels that the fibrosarcoma is a more aggressive tumor so should the case be coded to the 8810/3.

2. If DFSP has areas of fibrosarcoma, should it be coded to the latter because it is more aggressive? Example: Skin and subcutaneous tissue reads: Low grade sarcoma - tumor extends to margin. Comment: "Although the predominant pattern of this tumor is consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, focal presence of hypercellularity and increased mitotic figures suggest transformation to Grade I fibrosarcoma. This progression, although focal, carries an increased risk of mets over classic DFSP. Code to 8810/31?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8832/3 [Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans] for both cases. DFSP with transformation to fibrosarcoma and DFSP with areas of fibrosarcoma are coded to 8832/3.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2006
20061002 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): How many primaries? See Discussion. 5/05 perianal skin bx, 6/05 mapping bx perianal skin, 9/05 punch bx perianal skin: all positive for extramammary Paget Disease. 9/05 Perianal Excision of Paget w/V-Y flap repair. Path: Perianal and anal skin: Extramammary Paget disease associated with: Invasive adenoca of anal canal. Anal margins positive for invasive adenoca. Comment: invasive adenoca with local mucinous features involving the anal margin/end of specimen. This adenoca is in continuity with (associated with) extensively diffuse extramammary Paget disease. Unclear whether the adenoca represents a rectal primary with spread to perianal area, anal gland adenoca or mets. 12/05 AP resection-no residual Paget or invasive neoplasm.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is one primary.

Code the histology to 8542 [Paget disease, extramammary]. Code the primary site C210 [anus]. Histology rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SPCM applies in this case.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2006
20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

What primary site code do we use?

Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

 2006