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: 05/23/2025 08:31 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041066

Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Ovary: Is a patient SEER reportable in 2001 or 2003 if she presented with a diagnosis of papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential [borderline tumor] per the 5/2001 surgery but at the time of the planned second look laparoscopic surgery is stated to have Stage 3A ovarian cancer? See Discussion.

A patient was seen in 5/2001 for large pelvic mass growing from right ovary. After TAH and USO and partial omemtectomy, path diagnosis was papillary serous tumor of low malignant potential (borderline tumor), unruptured. Right ovary and omental implant have identical histologic appearance, except the psammoma body formation and the ovary does not.

Patient does not return for lap as planned in 6-12 months.

In 1/03 she returns to hospital with abdominal pain and has debulking, hemicolectomy and Hartmann's procedure. 1/03 Path report "metastatic papillary serous adenoca." Chart now says "History of stage 3A ovarian cancer."

Yes, this case is reportable in 2003. Malignancy was confirmed in 2003. The diagnosis made in 2001 is not reportable for that year, and was not reviewed or revised according to the information provided.

 2004
20041024

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Is the phrase "indicative of cancer" SEER reportable?

No. The phrase "indicative of cancer" alone is not a definitive cancer diagnosis. The word "indicative" is not on the list of ambiguous terms that is equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer.

 2004
20041022 Primary site/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior: What is the correct site and histology/behavior for the following diagnosis: "mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei." This was diagnosed at e-lap for a separate adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The appropriate code for mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix with perforation and pseudomyxoma peritonei is C18.1 8470/0. It is not reportable to SEER. According to our pathologist consultant, mucinous cystadenoma is a legitimate term for such appendiceal tumors. They may implant all over the peritoneum as pseudomyxoma peritonei, especially in the face of perforation, without being histologically malignant.

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.

 2004
20041031 CS Extension--Bladder: How should this field be coded when the pathology states "papillary transitional cell carcinoma with no invasion into the submucosa or deep muscularis" but there is "focal extension of tumor into bladder diverticula"?

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 the CS Extension field to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma stated to be noninvasive]. Extension into bladder diverticula does not change the code. Diverticula are pouches in the mucosa (mucous membrane).

 2004
20041071 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When the histology from a lumpectomy differs from that of a core needle biopsy, should the lumpectomy histology be coded? See Discussion.

Histology - Page 85 of the SPM 2004, Histology Type Coding Instructions, #2. Use the histology stated in the final diagnosis from the pathology report. Use the pathology from the procedure that resected the majority of the primary tumor.

Based on this rule, should the following case should be coded to Ductal Carcinoma (8500/31)?

Core needle bx: WD Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma with focal lobular features. Lumpectomy: WD Invasive Ductal Carcinoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code this case to 8500/31 [Well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma]. Code the histology stated on the pathology report from the procedure removing the most tumor tissue. A lumpectomy will usually provide more tumor tissue than a core needle biopsy.

First, determine which specimen contains the most TUMOR tissue -- in this case the lumpectomy. Next, apply the histology coding rules to the diagnosis on that pathology report. The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.

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.

 2004
20041023 Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should "moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of scar type, intermixed with bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma" be coded to 8250 [bronchiolo-alveolar adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma of mixed subtypes]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code Histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. This is a single tumor containing both a scar carcinoma and a bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma--use 8255. The synonym for 8255 is adenocarcinoma combined with other types of carcinoma (not just subtypes).

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.

 2004
20041069

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Is a meningioma invading the bone malignant and, therefore, SEER reportable if diagnosed prior to 2004? See Discussion.

1. Meningothelial meningioma with prominent nuclear pleomorphism, infiltration into dura, calvarium, temporalis skeletal muscle.

Microscopic: Multifocal infiltration by meningothelial tumor...extensive infiltration of trabecular spaces, extension through inner and outer calvarial layers by meningioma...mitotic activity in tumor noted but below the 4 per 10 high power field threshold for diagnosis of atypical meningioma.

2. Aggressive (invasive) transitional type meningioma, neuroimaging and histology imply extensive invasive meningioma involving bone and paraspinal soft tissues. Microscopy:...invaded bone...focal EMA positivity diagnostic of invasive transitional type meningioma... tumor invades bone.

The two cases above are benign meningiomas and not reportable prior to 2004. According to an expert consultant, meningiomas are in the lining cells for the inner table of the skull and as such have an affinity for bone that allows them to penetrate adjacent bone without being "malignant."

The WHO Nervous System Tumor Classification states malignant meningioma exibits histological features of frank malignancy far in excess of the abnormalities present in atypical meningioma (WHO grade II). Examples of the histologic features of malignant meningioma are obviously malignant cytology, or high mitotic index (20 or more mitoses per 10 high-power fields). They correspond to WHO grade III and are usually fatal.

 2004
20041009 Diagnostic Confirmation--Lymphoma: Can lymphoma be diagnosed clinically? See Description.

Example 1: Patient with B symptoms. Physical exam reveals large neck mass. Physician impression is lymphoma.

Example 2: CT scans show lymphadenopathy consistent with lymphoma.

In both cases, patient does not return for biopsies.

Yes, lymphoma can be accessioned based on a clinical diagnosis.

Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 1 as 8 [Clinical diagnosis only].

Code Diagnostic Confirmation in Example 2 as 7 [Radiography and other imaging techniques without microscopic confirmation].

 2004
20041082 Date of Diagnosis: When a 4/04 clinical impression indicates the appearance of a carcinoma that is contradicted by a negative 4/04 biopsy but is confirmed by a 5/04 resection, should the diagnosis date be coded to April or May? See Discussion.

4/04 colonscopy: irregular fungating mass that has appearance of carcinoma. 4/04 Bx: high grade dysplasia. 5/04: LAR. 5/04 Path: 3.2 X 2.5 cm mass wd adenoca with invasion of muscularis propria.

Should the diagnosis date be 4/04 based on the clinical impression during the colonoscopy OR 5/04 since the path for the bx was negative?

 The date of diagnosis for the example above is 05/04 -- the date of the pathology report confirming malignacy. The biopsy in 04/04 negated the 04/04 clinical statement. 2004
20041086 Histology (Pre-2007)/CS Tumor Size/CS Extension--Colon: How are these fields coded if a 3 cm sessile polyp is snared and removed piecemeal during a colonoscopy and the path microscopic description indicates a polypoid lesion with foci of malignant transformation found associated with bundles of smooth muscles followed by a LAR with no residual invasive tumor but the final path diagnosis is stated to be a M.D. adenocarcinoma? See Discussion.

3/04 colonoscopy 3cm sessile polyp snared & removed piecemeal. Path Micro: Polypoid lesion consists of branching & complex neoplastic glands lined by tall columnar epithelial...These foci of malignant transformation are assoicated with large polygonal epithelial...associated with desmoplastic stromal reaction & neoplastic glands can be found associated with bundles of smooth muscle.

4/04 LAR: focus of residual HG dysplasia: no residual invasive tumor. Final path dx: MD adenocarcinoma. Physician staged: T2 N0 M0.

Histology: 8140 vs 8210

Tumor Size: 030 vs 999 vs 990

Extension: 12 vs 20

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.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Based only on information provided:

Histology: 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in a polyp]

Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown]

CS Extension: 20 [Muscularis propria invaded]

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.

 2004