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: 02/21/2026 18:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031052

Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description.

Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)?

Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias.

 2003
20031089 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bone: How are these fields coded for a squamous cell carcinoma in bone? See Description. The consult path report says "I believe that there is definitely high grade malignant tumor in this amputation specimen, and that this tumor represents an invasive squamous cell carcinoma, which is extending into the bone and permeating in between the bone trabeculae. ... The fact that squamous cell carcinoma can arise from the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis is well recognized."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Based on the information provided, code the primary site as C40._ or C41._ [bone] because the tumor originated in the sinuses of chronic osteomyelitis. Code to the site in which the tumor arises. Override the SEER site/histology edits to allow this rare combination of bone and squamous cell 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.

 2003
20031031

Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?"

Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia.

Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary.

Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not reportable.

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.

 2003
20031131

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007): Would osteosarcoma of the right arm diagnosed four years after malignant fibrous histiocytoma, also in the right arm, be a second primary when the physician states, "the patient's disease progressed to sarcoma after radiation was administered?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The osteosarcoma is a second primary. The first three digits of the histology codes are different: 8830 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma] and 918_ or 919_ [Osteosarcoma]. In addition, the diagnoses are four years apart. According to SEER rules, 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.

 2003
20031082 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.

2003
20031155 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description. "Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex." Does this mean that there is extension into the apex?

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 cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:

Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension.

The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion "has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined."

Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes].

 2003
20031051 Histology (Pre-2007)/Sarcoma: What code is used to represent the histology "Ewing's Sarcoma/Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor (PNET)"? See Description. A comment on one path report states "some authors consider both Ewing's & PNET to be the same biologic entity given that they share the same translocation between chromosomes 11 & 22." The pathologists at our children's hospital agree with this statement and contend that the two should have the same histologic code.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 9260/3, Ewing sarcoma. Ewing sarcoma is a specific histology on the continuum of primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Code Ewing sarcoma as it is more specific than PNET, 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.

 2003
20031194

Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.

We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?

Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?

 Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. 2003
20031077 Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: What code is used to represent the histology "mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma?" Is mucin-producing synonymous with mucinous?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 8253 [Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous]. Mucin-producing bronchoalveolar carcinoma is best classified in ICD-O-3 as Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma, mucinous.

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.

 2003
20031068

EOD-Extension--Colon: Is a pathology description of "superficial invasion of the muscularis mucosa in the upper stalk of the polyp" coded in this field to 10 [mucosa (including intramucosal) NOS], 12 [Muscularis mucosa], or 14 [Stalk of polyp]? See Description.

Do we use the highest applicable value because all three definitions are used in the following example? Ex: Path diagnosis: Sigmoid polyp: tubulovillous adenoma with a focus within upper portion of stalk consistent with superficially invasive (intramucosal) colonic adenocarcinoma (see Comment). Comment: ... in the upper stalk region, there is evidence of superficially invasive carcinoma which appears to be limited to the muscularis mucosa and thus would be intramucosal by classification.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension as 12 [muscularis mucosae]. For this case, "upper stalk" is a reference to location rather than extension. This adenocarcinoma extends to the muscularis mucosa.

 2003