Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20190002 | Histology/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How should Histology and Behavior be coded for a polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young (PLNTY) arising in the brain? |
Updated answer Assign code 9413/0. |
2019 | |
|
|
20170023 | Reportability/Date of Diagnosis--Prostate: Is PI-RADS 5 diagnostic of prostate cancer, and if so, can we use the date of the impression on the scan that states PI-RADS category 5 as the diagnosis date? See Discussion. |
We are seeing more use of PI-RAD categories on scans. The final impression on the scan will be PI-RADS Category 5, with no specific statement of malignancy. The scans include a blanket statement with the definitions of the PI-RADS categories as below. PI-RADS (v2) categories: PI-RADS 1 - Very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 2 - Low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 3 - Intermediate (the presence of clinically significant cancer is equivocal) PI-RADS 4 - High (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5 - Very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) A previous SINQ 20010094 indicates that we cannot use BI-RADS categories for breast cancer diagnosis, and SINQ 20160008 indicates we can use LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis, but those definitions are slightly different. Most often there will be a subsequent biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma, so the question is also in reference to Diagnosis Date. Can we use the date of the scans impression, which states PI-RADS category 5, as the Diagnosis Date? |
Updated answer PI-RADS categories 4 and 5 are reportable, unless there is other information to the contrary. PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) Use the date of the scan as the date of diagnosis. |
2017 |
|
|
20010094 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Breast: Should the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS assessment categories 4 [Suspicious Abnormality--biopsy should be considered] and 5 [Highly Suggestive of malignancy-appropriate action should be taken], impressions for mammograms and sonograms, be used as the sole basis for reportability? See discussion. |
ACR website: Category 4: Lesions that do not have the characteristic morphologies of breast cancer but have a definite probability of being malignant. Category 5: lesions have a high probability of being cancer. |
Updated Answer Please refer to Appendix E of the SEER Program Coding Manual for the most up-to-date information, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2018/SPCSM_2018_AppendixE.pdf |
2001 |
|
|
20031173 | First Course Treatment/Hormone Therapy--Thyroid: Is hormone replacement therapy such as levothyroxine (Synthroid) for thyroid carcinoma coded as first course of treatment? See Discussion. |
Examples: Patient was admitted for thyroidectomy with a diagnosis of probable thyroid cancer. Patient's history stated that patient received work-up for hypothyroidism and was found to have thyroid nodule. Fine needle aspirate suggested carcinoma. Patient's medications included Cytomel and Synthroid. Patient was given levothyroxine after thyroidectomy for medullary thyroid carcinoma. |
Updated December 2025 Do not code levothyroxine given to treat hypothyroidism or as cancer treatment for medullary carcinoma when given as replacement therapy and not as thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression therapy. Thyroid hormone therapy is generally coded as treatment for follicular, papillary, and oncocytic thyroid carcinomas. |
2003 |
|
|
20180109 | Date of diagnosis/Ambiguous terminology--Cervix Uteri: Is the date of diagnosis of a cervical pap smear done in December 2017, that states high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with features suspicious for invasion, followed by a cervical biopsy in 2018 positive for squamous cell carcinoma, in 2017? Is the ambiguous term used in the cytology in 2017 (suspicious for invasion) to determine diagnosis as the SEER manual states to use the ambiguous cytology as the date of diagnosis if confirmed later. |
Updated for cases diagnosed 2022 or later For cases diagnosed in 2022 or later, see the instructions in the SEER manual under Reportability and Date of Diagnosis for ambiguous cytology. |
2018 | |
|
|
20120079 | Reportability: Is positive urine cytology (ex: malignant cells interpreted as carcinoma) by itself reportable? If so, is the case coded to bladder by default or is is coded to C689, urinary system, NOS? | Urine cytology positive for malignancy is reportable. Code the primary site to C689 in the absence of any other information.
However, if a subsequent biopsy of a urinary site is negative, do not report the case.
For 2013 diagnoses and forward, report these cases when they are encountered. Do not implement new/additional casefinding methods to capture these cases. As always, do not report cytology cases with ambiguous terminology. |
2012 | |
|
|
20240054 | EOD 2018/Primary Tumor--Breast: We are having difficulty deciding when we can or cannot use physician-assigned TNM staging to code EOD data items if the medical record or hospital abstract documentation is unclear. As a central registry, we are unable to query physicians for clarification. Please advise what is a “discrepancy” in the EOD General Instructions to “Use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record.” See Discussion. |
We know that physician TNM staging is not always accurate, and we also know that doctors sometimes use information in assigning their TNM which may not be available to registrars. Is it a discrepancy when the documentation in the chart is unclear or not definitive, yet the physician assigns a TNM that seems to incorporate that documentation? Or is a discrepancy an obvious conflict between chart documentation and the doctor’s staging – such as a mis-assignment of TNM category that doesn’t at all match with clear and complete medical record documentation, or the physician’s use of criteria that should be excluded from the TNM assignment per AJCC guidelines? A real case example is a patient with breast carcinoma, imaging states 12 cm tumor with thickening of dermis, and thickening of morphologically suspicious internal mammary and level 1-2 axillary lymph nodes. Medical oncologist states locally advanced breast cancer with extensive changes involving skin thickening associated with the mass, at least stage IIIC based on imaging and exam findings, cT4 N3b. Only axillary nodes were sampled and found to be positive. Post-neoadjuvant therapy resection showed only focal DCIS. Per EOD guidelines, would the oncologist’s staging be a discrepancy with the chart documentation and therefore ignored, with EOD-Primary Tumor coded 200 for skin thickening, and EOD-Lymph Nodes 200 for involvement of axillary nodes only? Or would the doctor’s TNM be a clarification/confirmation of documentation terms that we otherwise would not code, with EOD-PT coded 400 for extensive skin involvement and EOD-LNs 600 for internal mammary + axillary nodes? |
Use all information available in the medical record. EOD is a combination of the most precise clinical and pathological documentation of the extent of disease as instructed in the EOD 2018 General Instructions, Extent of Disease section. EOD 2018 General Instructions, General Coding Instructions section advises to use the medical record documentation to assign EOD when there is a discrepancy between the T, N, M information and the documentation in the medical record. When there is doubt that the documentation in the medical record is complete, code the EOD corresponding to the physician staging. A discrepancy can exist within the medical record when the information in the chart is unclear, incomplete, or conflicting, for example, the TNM staging from pathology differs from the medical oncologist’s TNM staging. In the scenario provided, use the medical oncologist stage information that takes into account imaging and exam findings. Based on the stage cT4 N3b, assign EOD Primary Tumor: 400 Extensive skin involvement WITHOUT a stated diagnosis of inflammatory carcinoma WITH or WITHOUT dermal lymphatic filtration EOD Regional Nodes: 600 Internal mammary node(s), ipsilateral, clinically apparent (On imaging or clinical exam) WITH axillary (level I, II, or III) lymph node(s), ipsilateral including infraclavicular |
2024 |
|
|
20140066 | First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor? |
Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.
Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants. |
2014 | |
|
|
20200048 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed with right lower lobe invasive acinar adenocarcinoma (8551/3) in 2018 and treated with lobectomy, followed by a 2019 right middle lobe cancer (NOS, 8000/3) diagnosed as new stage 1 primary by cancer conference? See Discussion. |
Lung Rule M14 appears to be the first rule that applies to this case and instructs the user to abstract a single primary. However, we were hoping for confirmation that a cancer (NOS) or malignancy (NOS) would not be a distinctly different histology that may qualify for Lung Rule M8. Currently, these histologic terms are not included in the Table 3 options or mentioned in the preceding notes. |
Use M14 and code a single primary. Per our SME, carcinoma or cancer, NOS is not an acceptable diagnosis which is why 8000 and 8010 were not included in the tables or rules. We assume there was no tissue diagnosis for the 2019 diagnosis. We recommend searching for more information or better documentation on this case. |
2020 |
|
|
20130100 | Multiple primaries/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are there and how should I code the primary site(s)? See discussion. |
Patient had a hemicolectomy and a salpingo-oophorectomy and was found to have diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the colon (10 cm cecal mass), 3/16 regional lymph nodes involved with lymphoma. Fallopian tube showed involvement with diffuse large B Cell lymphoma.
Multiple primaries - Colon and fallopian tube?
One primary - Colon? Stage IV, or lymphoma from an unknown primary? Note: There were no other lymph nodes involved. |
Use Rule M2. Abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.
When you have questions about how to code the primary site, start with the abstractor notes. If the answer isn't found there go to Module 7 (a specific module to help code primary site for lymphomas).
The abstractor notes for DLBCL in this case do not provide information you can use for this case. Go to Module 7 in the PH rules.
Use Rule PH25 Code the primary site to the organ when lymphoma is present in an organ and that organ’s regional lymph nodes. Code the primary site to colon (organ and regional lymph nodes involved). The fallopian tube is secondary involvement. As is common with lymphomas, there can be more than one organ involved. You can differentiate the primary site from the secondary site(s) because of the large colon mass with regional lymph node involvement. |
2013 |
An official website of the United States government
