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: 10/31/2025 20:03 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071100 Type of Multiple Tumors--Colon: How is this field coded for a case in which the patient is found to have two in situ polyps and an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp all in the same segment of the colon? See Discussion. Code 30 would not count the fact that these are polyps. Code 31 states "AND a frank adenocarcinoma." What would be the correct code? Assign code 30 [In situ and invasive] in this case. Code 31 does not apply here because frank adenocarcinoma is not present. 2007
20071105 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma/Leukemia: How many primaries and what histologies are coded when a path diagnosis for a cervical/neck mass demonstrates classical Hodgkin's lymphoma on a background of chronic lymphocytic leukemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Hodgkin disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are separate primaries according to our current instructions. Abstract and code them separately.

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.

 2007
20071111 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has an adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features in the right upper lobe, adenocarcinoma in the right middle lobe and non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features in the right lower lobe? See Discussion.

A RUL lung wedge resection and RML and RLL lobectomies were performed. The RUL resection showed invasive adenocarcinoma with bronchioalveolar-like features. Tumor size 9x.9x.8cm. The RLL lobectomy showed invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features. Tumor size 4.1x2.5x1.8cm. The RML lobectomy showed invasive adenocarcinoma. Tumor size 3.0x1.6x2.2cm.

Comment: Essentially three invasive tumors and a focus of bronchioalveolar carcinoma were identified in 3 specimens. All of the tumors appear somewhat histologically different. The larger tumors in the right upper and middle lobe were somewhat similar but still appear histologically different and therefore the pathologic staging is done based on all tumors being separate. The pathologic staging for this case is pT2(4) pN0 pMX.

What histology code and what site code are to be used on each abstract?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries:

  1. C349 with histology coded to 8140 - invasive adenocarcinoma (RUL and RML)

  • C343 with histology coded to 8310 - invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (RLL)

    • First, determine the number of tumors. There are three separate tumors in right lung in the example above:

    • RUL: invasive adenocarcinoma, bronchioalveolar-like features (8140, "-like" is not on the list of ambiguous terms used to code histology)

  • RLL: invasive non-small cell carcinoma with clear cell features (8310)

  • RML: invasive adenocarcinoma (8140)

    • Because there are three tumors, begin with rule M3 in the Multiple Tumors module. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries for the tumor in the RLL (8310) compared to the tumors in the RUL and RML (8140 and 8140).

    Now evaluate the tumors in the RUL and RML using the multiple primary rules. Start at rule M3 and stop at rule M12, single primary.

    		 2007
    		20071058

    CS Tumor Size: Is a measured "area" equivalent to a tumor, mass or lesion size? See Discussion.

    Collaborative Stage manual, page 26

    Rule 4a: "always code size of the primary tumor, not size of the polyp, ulcer, cyst or distant metastasis."

    Rule 4e: Additional rule for breast primaries: Example: Duct carcinoma in situ covering a 1.9 cm area with focal areas of invasive ductal carcinoma. Record the tumor size as 1.9 cm.

    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.In general, a measured area is not equivalent to a tumor size.

    Do not apply the rule related to the breast example to other primary sites. This example in the CS manual pertains to coding tumor size for breast primaries when the size of the invasive component is not stated. In the example, the area involved with duct carcinoma in situ is the only measurement available. The size of the invasive component was not given.

    		 2007
    		20071045 Ambiguous Terminology: How is this field to be coded when there is a "conclusive term" exactly 60 days following the initial diagnosis? See Discussion. Is code 1 [Ambiguous terminology diagnosis only within 60 days of initial diagnosis] or code 2 [Ambiguous term followed by a conclusive term more than 60 days after the initial diagnosis] to be used for a case that had a conclusive diagnosis at 60 days from initial diagnosis? The instructions on page 97 do not match the code definitions on page 95.

    The definition for code 2 should be "More than 60 days" after the date of diagnosis.

    Code 1 is 60 days or less, code 2 is more than 60 days.

    This will be clarified in the first revision to the MP/H manual.

    		 2007
    		20071040 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.

    Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:

    in situ following an invasive,

    invasive following an in situ,

    in situ following an in situ,

    or invasive following an invasive

    are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

    This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.

    		 2007
    		20071131 Cell indicator--Lymphoma: If the primary site for a lymphoma is stated to be the lymph nodes but there is no biopsy of a lymph node, can the immunophenotype designation for a lymphoma be coded based on a bone marrow or liver biopsy indicating "diffuse large B-cell lymphoma"?

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

    The cell indicator or immunophenotype designation for lymphomas may be coded from pathology reports on tissue from bone marrow or liver when there is no tissue from the primary site. Code information on cell type from any available source.

    See the Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual, Coding Guidelines for Lymphomas, pages C-1055 to C-1056 for more information about coding this field for lymphomas.

    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.

    		 2007
    		20071009 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion. MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities. 2007
    		20071114 Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion. Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer.

    Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.

    The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.

    The instructions are:

    If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as

    apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

    		 2007
    		20071046 Ambiguous Terminology: Why was 60 days chosen for ambiguous terminology?

    The Histology Task Force approved a 60 day time frame for ambiguous terminology.

    The majority of cases are first identified by ambiguous terminology; for example, a patient has a mammogram that shows a lesion suspicious for cancer. That first indication of cancer prompts a work-up to either confirm or rule-out the cancer diagnosis.

    The data item "Ambiguous terminology" is not intended to capture information on this routine method of detecting and diagnosing cancer. The 60 day time frame should keep these cases out of the ambiguous terminology data item.

    The data item is intended to identify those cases where the cancer diagnosis is NOT confirmed during the work-up, but the case is still entered into the database. For example a patient who has a TRUS because of elevated PSA. The pathology from the TRUS says "Suspicious for adenocarcinoma of the prostate." The physician only documents that the patient is to return in 6 months for another PSA and TRUS. The registrar would enter this case into the data base because the word "suspicious" is on the ambiguous terminology list.

    		 2007