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: 02/23/2026 12:02 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061011 CS Site Specific Factor/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: If the ITCs are greater than 0.2 mm, how are these fields coded?

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.

Lymph nodes with metastases greater than 0.2 mm are counted as positive. Code in CS Lymph Nodes and CS Regional LN Positive. Do not code ITC's greater than 0.2 mm in CS Site Specific Factor 4.

 2006
20061042 First Course Treatment--Lymphoma: Should the use of proton pump inhibitors be coded as treatment for lymphoma primaries in patients with H Pylori? No, do not code proton pump inhibitors as treatment. These are used for gastric acid suppression. Proton pump inhibitors are used to treat symptoms, not the lymphoma itself. 2006
20061130 CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?

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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.

The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.

 2006
20061077 Chemotherapy--Breast: Is chemotherapy administered for inflammatory breast cancer also coded as therapy for an in situ tumor in the contralateral breast? Yes. Because chemotherapy would likely affect both primaries, code it as treatment for both the in situ and the inflammatory breast cancers. 2006
20061039 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]?

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 tumor size 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020.

The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm."

It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2.

 2006
20061047 CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Peritoneum: How are these fields coded for extraovarian peritoneal carcinomas presenting with multiple peritoneal implants? See Discussion.

Patient presented with large omental cake and multiple peritoneal implants including implants on the rectosigmoid serosa and right ovary. Path revealed papillary serous adenocarcinoma consistent with peritoneal primary.

Per AJCC Manual, extraovarian peritoneal carcinoma is usually staged with the ovarian staging classification.

We understand that the CS Manual will eventually be revised to include staging for extraovarian peritoneal primaries. In the meantime, how do we use the existing CS scheme for peritoneum to code these cases?

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 Extension 99 [unknown] and CS Mets at DX 99 [unknown].

The issue has been sent to the CS steering committee for resolution. This answer will be updated when the steering committee provides a resolution.

 2006
20061078 Histology (Pre-2007): How is "adenocarcinoma, diffuse type, with signet ring features" coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Histology coding Rule 7 is the only rule that applies to this diagnosis. Assign the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code.

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
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
20061006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: If an orchiectomy specimen contains non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor and a separate satellite of seminoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? Pathology: R Orchiectomy: 2.1 cm non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor (50% teratoma primarily mature, 50% embryonal CA and yolk sac tumor). Located 3cm from the main tumor is a 2mm satellite pure seminoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is a single primary because the first three digits of the ICD-O-3 histology codes are the same, according to Rule 3a on page 11 of the 2004 SEER manual. Code the histology 9065 [Germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. Code 9065 is preferred over the less-specific code of 9061 [Seminoma, NOS].

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
20061138 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is the histology field(s) coded when a nipple biopsy demonstrates Paget disease and a separate biopsy in the same breast demonstrates inflammatory breast carcinoma? See Discussion. Should Paget disease be coded as the histology because it has a higher histology code than inflammatory carcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the inflammatory carcinoma as one primary and the Paget disease as a separate primary. The first three digits of the histology codes for these histologies are different (8530 and 8540). Therefore, these are separate primaries.

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