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: 02/11/2026 11:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20081116 CS Extension--Brain and CNS: How is this field coded for a malignant brain tumor that presents as a lesion with significant pressure on the left frontal ventricle and dilation of the right ventricles? See Discussion. CS Extension code 30 includes tumor that invades or encroaches upon the ventricular system. Does significant pressure mean the same thing as encroach?

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.Do not assign extension code 30 in this case unless there is evidence elsewhere of ventricular system involvement.

"Significant pressure" is not synonymous with encroachment or involvement. See the list of ambiguous terms for CS staging on page 121 of the 2007 SEER manual.

 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
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
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
20081135

MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.

However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.

 Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.

 2008
20081106

MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries for the following?

Breast lumpectomy: Three foci of invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #1 - Invasive ductal carcinoma.

Tumor nodule #2 - Invasive ductal carcinoma with tubular features.

Tumor nodule #3 - Invasive tubular carcinoma.

See Discussion.

According to the MP/H rules, this case is reportable as three primaries with histologies coded 8500, 8523 and 8211. However, our QC staff is having a problem accepting this. When the pathologist specifies that a ductal carcinoma has tubular features or is tubular type, isn't s/he saying that tubular is a type of duct? In addition, the first line of the FDx states, "Three foci of ductal carcinoma," which indicates that the pathologists interprets the three nodules to be ductal carcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

These three tumors are three separate primaries. Rule M12 applies.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, tubular carcinoma is not a type of duct carcinoma.

Among the paramount reasons for writing the MP/H rules are the non-standard usage of nomenclature by physicians and the inconsistency in interpretation of these non-standard phrases. The MP/H rules must be applied consistently by each cancer registrar in order for data to be comparable across registries.

 2008
20081011 Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion. Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed.

Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.

CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].

Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].

The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery.

 2008
20081033 Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?

"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.

Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."

 2008
20081110

MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

 2008