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: 02/25/2026 10:17 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061090 CS Extension--Prostate: Does the term "activity" in a Prostascint report indicate a clinically apparent tumor, tumor extension or tumor involvement for this primary site? (http://www.rtrurology.com/prostascint.htm)

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, the term "activity" alone does not indicate clinically apparent tumor or involvement.

 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
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
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
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
20061001 2004 SEER Manual Errata/CS Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: On page C-353, in the supraglottic larynx schema, there is no mention of Level IV nodes in the CS Lymph Node codes.

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.The CS Steering Committee is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it.

 2006
20061063 CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.

1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?

Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?

If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)

2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))

a. Heart problems?

b. The location of the pleural effusion?

i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?

ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?

iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?

iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?

SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION

Note 6: Pleural Effusion.

A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.

B. Note from 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 and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.

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.

1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.

2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.

 2006
20061008 Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus uteri: How is a polyp with "endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma" coded? See Discussion. The path report for the TAH stated the endometrium contained an endometrial polyp measuring 6x3x3cm. Within the polyp there was endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma. There is no myometrial invasion by the tumor. (The Endometrial bx before surgery was positive for Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor.)

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8980 [Carcinosarcoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, Malignant mullerian mixed tumor is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma is now the preferred terminology rather than malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.

Carcinosarcoma has both malignant epithelial and mesenchymal components. The epithelial component is usually glandular (adenocarcinoma in this case). The mesenchymal component is usually sarcoma (as in this case).

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
20061004

CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: If the tumor is described as being a 1 cm poorly differentiated pleomorphic lobular carcinoma with scattered LCIS in breast tissue, for SSF6, do we use the breast tumor or all of the breast tissue removed when coding SSF6?

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.

Site Specific Factor 6 in the breast scheme describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded. Code SSF6 for the same tumor used to code tumor size.

For this example, code SSF6 for the 1 cm tumor. In this case, the entire tumor is reported as invasive; use code 000 [Entire tumor reported as invasive].

 2006
20061085 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: Is histology coded from the more representative specimen or should the combination code 8522/3 [Infiltrating duct and lobular carcinoma] be used for a case in which a right breast mass needle core biopsy revealed infiltrating ductal ca, grade III and the subsequent right mastectomy revealed a 2.3 cm lobular carcinoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology using the final diagnosis on the pathology report of the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor. In this case, the mastectomy removed more of the tumor than the needle biopsy. The final diagnosis from the mastectomy is infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Code histology to 8520/3 [lobular carcinoma].

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