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: 02/13/2026 08:11 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061053 Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion. SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.

 2006
20061106 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.

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
20061087

Reportability--Melanoma: Is the following reportable? See Discussion.

PATH: Skin, Lt back exc bx: compound nevus with severe cytoarchitectural atypia and regression. Comment: due to overlap of morphology between MM and nevi with severe atypia, and since there's evidence of regression, consideration for re-excision may be considered if clinically indicated. The final diagnosis, compound nevus with severe atypia, is not reportable. This diagnosis is not listed in ICD-O-3. 2006
20061097

Reportability--Lymphoma: Is a lymphoma diagnosed on a bone marrow biopsy reportable if the cytogenetics evaluation performed does not confirm the malignancy? See Discussion.

Bone marrow Bx: Marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia. The morphology of the lymphoma/leukemia cells and the immunophenotypic characteristics identified by flow cytometry are consistent with marginal zone lymphoma/leukemia.

Addendum Report: Cytogenetic evaluation revealed a 46,XY male karyotype. This is the normal male chromosome karyotype. Based on the limits of this methodology, no evidence of hematologic malignancy was observed in this specimen.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Yes, this case is reportable. The cytogenetic evaluation cited in the addendum report does not disprove the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis.

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
20061037 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.

Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"

A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."

These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.

According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.

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
20061036 CS Extension--Lymphoma: For lymphoma cases, can extension be coded to 80 [Nodular involvement of lungs] based on imaging or operative findings when there is no positive statement of involvement? See Discussion.

Specifically, CS Ext code 80 includes nodular involvement of the lungs. The CT report for this patient states that the lungs are nodular. Is that enough to use code 80? Can the liver be coded as involved based on the operative findings?

Scenario: The patient was diagnosed with lymphoma. The CT showed pulmonary nodules. The pt had an exploratory laparotomy with a positive mesenteric LN bx and a positive ileocecectomy. The operative findings included a nodular liver. No staging was done by the oncologist and he has the pt on CHOP-R.

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.

Extension code 80 can be assigned based on imaging or operative findings as in the lymphoma case described above. The fact that this extension was not based on pathological evidence is captured in the evaluation code. Assign CS/TS Ext-Eval code 0 [No staging laparotomy done. No autopsy evidence used (clinical)].

 2006
20061116 Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Is a "composite mucinous adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma" coded to 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma] or should 8480 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be coded rather than 8070 [squamous carcinoma] because mucinous adenocarcinoma is a higher histology code than squamous carcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8560 [adenosquamous carcinoma]. According to our pathologist consultant, the mix of adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is adenosquamous carcinoma. Adenosquamous tumors are rare, but known, representing 3-4% of pancreatic carcinomas.

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
20061099 CS Extension--Lung: If only a "single" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are "multiple" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement?

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.

No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.

 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
20061120 Surgery of Primary Site--Bladder: Should a TURB be coded to 27 [Excisional biopsy; SEER Note: Code TURB as 27] when there is obvious extravesicular extension demonstrated because the 2004 SEER Manual states "Do not code an excisional biopsy when there is macroscopic residual disease"? Assign code 27 [excisional biopsy]. The site-specific instructions have priority over the general instructions. According to the instructions for coding surgery of the bladder, use code 27 for TURB. 2006