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: 09/11/2025 08:57 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061040 Reportability--Anus: Is a final diagnosis on a pathology report of "squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, NOS" assumed to be a skin of anus primary or a primary of the anus? Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is reportable unless known or stated to be skin of anus. 2006
20061095

First Course Treatment: If an "aromatase inhibitor" used as a complement to Tamoxifen is treatment, how should it be coded?

When an aromatase inhibitor is part of the planned first course of therapy, code it under hormone treatment.

When a change of drug is PLANNED, it is part of the same course even if subcategories change. This is the usual situation with Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (for example: Femara). The switch to Femara is planned, so it is not a new course. When a drug change happens that is not planned, it is still the same course if both drugs are in the same category and subcategory. An unplanned drug change to a different subcategory would be a new course.

 2006
20061075 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: Is a diagnosis of mycosis fungoides followed a year later with a biopsy proven diagnosis of anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma stated to represent a transformation of the previous mycosis fungoides reportable as one or two primaries?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code the histology according to the original diagnosis, mycosis fungoides. The physician states that this one disease process started as mycosis fungoides and progressed into lymphoma. A physician's statement has priority over other sources in determining the number of hematopoietic primaries.

In October 2006, a committee will begin working on multple primaries among hematopoietic diseases. The committee will provide further guidance on dealing with disease transformation and other issues.

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
20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

What primary site code do we use?

Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

 2006
20061021 Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: How is a "carcinoma with squamous, mucinous, and signet ring cell features" coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8490 [Signet ring cell carcinoma]. Rule 7 on page 87 of the 2004 SEER Manual applies to this case.

Rule 7: Code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code. This is the rule with the lowest priority and should be used infrequently.

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
20061018 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion. MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.

However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.

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
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
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
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