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: 02/22/2026 15:07 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20061104 Reportability/Behavior--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable" coded to 9975 with a behavior code of 3 as indicated in the WHO blue book on "Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues" or is it not abstracted because it has a behavior code of 1 which means the case is not reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code MDS/MPD U to 9975/3 [Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disease, unclassifiable]. Change the behavior code to /3 according to ICD-O-3 Rule F. The case is reportable.

The WHO book is more recent and gives a specific code for this new hybrid category of the WHO/REAL classification.

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
20061056 CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are positive paracecal lymph nodes for cecal primaries coded to 10 [paracolic] or code 20 [cecal: anterior (prececal), posterior (retrocecal); NOS]?

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.

Assign code 20 [Regional lymph node(s) for specific subsites]. Paracecal means near the cecum. Paracecal lymph nodes are regional nodes for the cecum and not for other colon subsites.

 2006
20061081 Collaborative Staging--Lung: Given that the AJCC lung TNM is not applicable for a high grade sarcoma of this site, how do we code Collaborative Stage for this site/histo combination when the pathologist indicates a TNM stage of T2bN0M0=stage III, using AJCC Soft Tissue Sarcoma schema?

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.

Use the lung schema to code CS for sarcoma of the lung. Complete the CS information as best you can from the medical record WITHOUT using the TNM Soft Tissue Sarcoma staging form. Visceral sarcomas are specifically excluded from soft tissue sarcoma TNM staging and sarcomas are excluded from the TNM staging for lung.

Sarcoma is listed on the Histology Exclusion Table for lung. When a case is coded in Collaborative Staging and the histology is on the exclusion list, SEER Summary Stage 1977 and 2000 can be assigned. For these cases, TNM will not be calculated and displayed results will be "T NA N NA M NA and Stage Group NA".

 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
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
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
20061046 First Course Treatment--Hematopoietic, NOS: How are Decadron and Zometa coded when used in the treatment of multiple myeloma? See Discussion. The 2004 SEER Program Manual instructions for coding hormone therapy do not provide any specific instructions for coding adrenocorticotrophic agents. Per Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases pg. 3, prednisone and decadron are coded as hormonal therapy (when given as part of a chemotherapy regimen). Does this mean that Decadron without chemo agents is not coded as treatment? In paging through the hematopoietic disease manual, one sees this instruction for other sites as well. Yet, for other diseases (e.g., Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia on page 18), prednisone is coded as hormone therapy (not necessarily as part of chemo regimen).

Code the decadron as hormonal treatment. Do not code the zometa--it is an ancillary agent.

In the August 2006 update of SEER*Rx, a note was added to decadron and other hormonal agents that they can be used to control white cell proliferation in lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

In general, decadron is used more commonly for supportive care and as an antiemetic than as hormone therapy.

 2006
20061094

Ambiguous terminology: Does the phrase "considered to be" represent ambiguous terminology when modifying a reportable term?

A tumor considered to be malignant is reportable. "Considered to be" is an UNambiguous term.

 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