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: 02/24/2026 21:49 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041064 CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS TS/Ext-Eval--Breast: How do you code these fields when the tumor size and extension differ pre and post treatment with neoadjuvant Arimidex? See Discussion. Clinically on PE 3 cm mass attached to skin with dimpling and erythema overlying the mass. Ultrasound: 2-3 cm breast mass with overlying skin thickened by US evaluation, suggesting dermal invasion. Neoadjuvant Arimidex followed by MRM. Path: 4.5 cm ductal carcinoma (no DCIS), no invasion of skin.

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.Record the larger tumor size and the farthest extension documented.

Code CS Tumor Size/Extension Evaluation to 6 [Surgical resection performed, WITH pre-surgical systemic treatment...; tumor size/extension based on pathologic evidence].

Code CS Tumor Size for the example to 045 [4.5 cm].

Code CS Extension to 20 [Local skin involvement ...] based on clinical description provided.

 2004
20041033

Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists.

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.

 2004
20041026 CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion. The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.

If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.

Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.

 2004
20041039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two 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.

 2004
20041050 Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: How do you code a procedure described as a "transanal resection, debulking of a large rectal mass"? See Discussion. Patient is not a surgical candidate due to "other medical conditions". Colonoscopy done for anemia and rectal bleeding. At the colonoscopy a "Transanal Resection Debulking of large rectal mass" is performed. Two specimens are sent to the lab. The first is labeled "rectal mass" and is a 2.0 cm diameter spherical fragment of tissue. The second is labeled "transanal debulking rectal mass" and is described as multiple, irregular shaped fragments of tan, rubbery tissue measuring 5.0 x 5.0 x 3.0 cm. Final path diagnosis: Debulking of rectal mass: Adenocarcinoma greater than 2 cm in size, resection margins positive for tumor. For cases diagnosed 1998-2002, code Surgery of Primary Site to 20 [Local tumor excision, NOS]. Because the procedure was performed via colonoscopy and apparently did not involve proctectomy, the best choice is a local excision. 2004
20041063 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Mediastinum: How do we code these fields for a case described as a "neuroendocrine carcinoma" of the "anterior mediastinum" without failing the SEER "impossible" site/histology combination edit? See Discussion. Two different facilities state that the patient has "neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum." This coded combination failed SEER edit (SEERIF38). We can not correct it because that edit flag does not appear on our system. Both facilities indicate that the mediastinum is the primary. In addition, there is text to support both the histology and primary site codes.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The combination of C381 [anterior mediastinum] and 8246 [neuroendocrine carcinoma] will be removed from the list of "impossible" site/histology combinations. There are rare cases of neuroendocrine carcinoma of the anterior mediastinum. As illustrated in the discussion, verify that the primary site is anterior mediastinum, the histology is neuroendocrine ca, and document those findings in the text.

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
20041076 CS Extension--Colon: What is the difference between codes 46 [Adherent to other organs or structures, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)] and 57 [Adherent to other organs or structures, NOS]? See Discussion.

Code 46 reads "Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)".

Would these examples be coded to 46?

Example 1: 7/04 Op findings: mass was adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion. Path: margins negative (no mention of duodenum). Case staged to pT3.

Example 2: Op findings: large mass involving cecum adherent to peritoneum & retroperitoneum. Path: invasion of pericolic soft tissue; margins negative (no metion of peritoneum & retroperitoneum). Case staged to pT3.

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 46: Attached to other organ (on imaging or surgical observation); pathology says no invasion of the other organ. Code 57: Attached to other organ; pathology is positive for invasion of other organ, or pathology does not specify whether there is invasion of the other organ.

Example 1: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or sturcture, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to the duodenum, but not invading

Example 2: Code extension to 46 [Adherent to other organs or structure, but no microscopic tumor found in adhesion(s)]. The tumor was attached to peritoneum & retroperitoneum, but not invading based on negative margins and no peritoneum or retroperitoneum specimen submitted to pathologist.

 2004
20041093 Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. 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
20041045 Histology (Pre-2007)--Ovary: What code is used to represent clear cell cystadenocarcinoma of the ovary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8310/3 [Clear cell adenocarcinoma, NOS]. This is consistent with the WHO Classification of Tumours and reflects the current practice of placing less emphasis on "cyst-" prefix for ovarian malignancies.

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