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: 02/18/2026 01:34 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031187

Histology--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology "monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]"? See Description.

A 14 year old with a cadaver kidney transplant in 1994 for membranous glomerulonephritis presented in 6/26/03 with a right cervical LN with biopsy showing "lymph node involved by monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Staging was done including a bone marrow which was negative, CSF negative. The oncologist on the case reduced the immunosuppression drugs with the final outcome being no sign of the lymphoma.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code 9680/36 [Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. This post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. According to the World Health Organization, there are two types of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. "Regular" post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is not a neoplasm and is therefore not reportable to a cancer registry. The second type (sometimes called Hodgkin-like PTLD) is classified as a B-cell lymphoma, which means that it IS 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
20031174 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.

Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.

Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract 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.

 2003
20031096 Radiation: How would this field be coded for treatment with quadramet [radioactive samarium]? See Description. Paitent is receiving quadramet for treatment of lung metastases. Code Quadramet in the RX Summ-Radiation field as 3 [Radioisotopes]. Quadramet is a radioisotope used to palliate bone pain. The instructions in the SEER manual state: "Record all radiation that is given, even if it is palliative." 2003
20031010 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: Are positive "neck nodes" coded to 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (including cervical lymph nodes)] in this field because we do not have a specific lymph node chain named or are they coded to 6 [Contra lateral hilar or mediastinal (incl. bilateral); supraclavicular (transverse cervical), ipsilateral or contralateral; scalene, ipsilateral or contralateral] because this code represents the lowest possible code for involved neck nodes? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-Lymph Nodes as 7 [Distant lymph nodes, other than above (incl. cervical neck nodes)]. Lymph nodes in the "neck" are distant, rather than regional, for lung. 2003
20031020

Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is the removal of the left tonsil during a bilateral tonsillectomy for a right tonsil primary coded in the surgery of the primary site field to 27 [Excisional bx], 30 [Pharyngectomy, NOS], 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy; bilateral tonsillectomy], or to code 2 under the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field? See discussion.

Our notes document a 1/99 SEER e-mail stating that tonsillectomy/tonsillectomy with wide excision would be code to 31. Is this still correct? Some of our coders felt that code 27 or 30 would be more appropriate.

Is the removal of the contralateral tonsil incidental removal or do we code it under Surgery of Other Regional Site, Distant Site, or Distant Lymph Nodes? If it is coded, would 5 be the correct code?

Assign code 31 [Limited/partial pharyngectomy; tonsillectomy, bilateral tonsillectomy]. Do not code removal of the contralateral tonsil under Surgical Procedure of Other Site. Surgery to remove regional tissue with the primary site during the same procedure is coded in the Surgery of Primary Site field.

 2003
20031203 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: Should this field be coded to 45 [wide excision or reexcision of lesion or minor (local) amputation with margins more than 1 cm, NOS], 46 [with margins between 1 and 2 cm], or 47 [with margins greater than 2 cm] for a skin primary diagnosed in 2003 when margins are stated exactly as 2 cm? Use code 46 [Wide excision...with margins more than 1 cm and less than 2 cm] when margins are exactly 2 cm. 2003
20031101 Primary Site/Behavior Code/EOD-Extension: How would these fields be coded for "squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving papilloma -- locally aggressive but not technically invasive" found in the sphenoid sinus, soft tissue of the skull base and brain? See Description.

The managing physician has staged this pathologically as T4 N0 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinuses. The final pathology report says " Sinus, sphenoid, resection: papillary neoplasm most consistent with inverted papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 7 cm in greatest extent, focus of probable superficial invasion (see comment).

Soft tissue, skull base, excision: involved by papillary neoplasm with squamous cell carcinoma in situ (see comment). Brain, extradural, intercranial biopsy: involved by papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ. COMMENT:

This is a predominantly exophytic neoplasm with infolding of the tumor epithelium and in situ extension into submucosal glands. There are only focal areas suspicious for invasive squamous cell carcinoma, with probable invasion (<2mm) in one section....The histologic features are most consistent with an inverted papilloma with carcinoma in situ." When asked to comfirm if the diagnosis were in situ or superficially invasive, the pathologist responded "Squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving a papilloma. Locally aggressive but not technically invasive."

Code site to C31.3 [sphenoid sinus]. Code the site based on the final pathology report diagnosis. In the case example, the site attributed to the managing physician appears to be an error.

Code behavior to 3 [malignant, primary site]. The SEER list of terms meaning involvement may be used to help determine behavior. The terms used by the pathologist are "probable" superficial invasion and "suspicious" for invasive squamous cell carcinoma with "probable" invasion. Interpret as invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension to 70 [Brain] because this tumor involves the brain.

 2003
20031022

Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: Is a composite resection performed for an oral cavity primary coded to 40 [Radical excision of tumor, NOS], 41 [Radical excision of tumor only], 42 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with mandibles (marginal, segmental, hemi-, or total resection], 43 [Combination of 41 with resection in continuity with maxilla (partial, subtotal, or total resection)]? See discussion.

Example:

Patient underwent composite resection of left soft palate, tonsillar fossa, medial pterygoid and lateral tongue for a primary of the retromolar trigone. There was no mention of an excision of the mandible; however, the procedure included the application of a mandibular reconstruction plate.

 Use surgery codes 40-43 for composite resection of an oral cavity primary. In the case example, code Site-Specific surgery as 42 [Combination of 41 WITH resection in continuity with mandible]. Even though excision of mandible was not mentioned, there was mention of a mandibular reconstruction plate. Since the retromolar trigone is ON the mandible, resection of the mandible is likely. 2003
20031206 EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description. Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis]. 2003
20031083 Grade, Differentiation: How is this field coded when the only description in the pathology report is "non-high grade?" Code "non-high grade" as 9 [unknown]. 2003