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: 10/09/2026 21:41 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20051067

Reportability--Lung: Is sclerosing hemangioma of the lung with multiple regional lymph nodes metastases reportable?

No, it is not reportable. According to the WHO Classification of Lung Tumours, sclerosing hemangioma "behaves in a clinically benign fashion...Reported cases with hilar or mediastinal lymph node involvement do not have a worse prognosis."

 Lung N/A 2005
20000465 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field when the only grade/differentiation given is "low grade", "intermediate grade" or "high grade"?

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.

Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.

 Lymphoma N/A 2000
20041078

Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.

12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.

Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.

Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.

 N/A N/A 2004
20031141 Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. Breast N/A 2003
20020003 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the tumor size if you have the aggregate size given for two or more tumor masses?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Never code the aggregate size in the Size of Primary Tumor field when the pieces removed come from TWO OR MORE tumors. If there is a clinical statement regarding the size of two or more tumors, code this field to the size of the largest tumor.

The aggregate size can only be used to code the Size of Primary Tumor field when the PATHOLOGIST estimates the size of the tumor from the pieces of ONE tumor removed by the surgeon.

 N/A N/A 2002
20031095

Summary Stage 2000--Colon: How should this field be coded for involvement of "pericolonic fat, NOS" when there is no mention of whether the fat is sub-serosal or supra-serosal? See Description.

In the summary staging manual pericolic fat is listed under regional direct extension with no mention of whether sub-serosal or supra-serosal. According to our report the pathologist must specify whether involvement of pericolonic fat is of subserosal or supraserosal fat. If involvement of pericolonic fat was not specified as such, this should be localized vs regional direct extension.

Code Summary Stage as 2 [Regional by direct extension only].

In Summary Stage 1977 and 2000, pericolic fat is listed under Regional Direct Extension. If there is no indication by the pathologist that the involved fat is subserosal, code as Regional Direct Extension.

 Colon N/A 2003
20000437

EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: Should "bilateral" inguinal lymph node involvement by lymphoma be two chains for the purpose of coding EOD?

Yes. Bilateral inguinal lymph nodes are coded as two chains/regions.

 Lymphoma N/A 2000
20031189 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Would a papillary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid diagnosed approximately 2 1/2 years after a papillary carcinoma of the left lobe be coded as a second primary? See Description.

8/31/1999: papillary carcinoma, left lobe thyroid, treated with lobectomy.

1/17/2002: papillary carcinoma, right lobe, treated with lobectomy, completion thyroidectomy.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this is a second primary. The second papillary carcinoma was more than 2 months after the first and not specified as recurrent or metastatic.

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.

 Thyroid N/A 2003
20041029

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.

Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."

The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.

 N/A N/A 2004
20071053 Grade, Differentiation: How is grade coded for cases using the FNCLCC (Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Ie Cancer) system? See Discussion. Is FNCLCC a recognized system in the United States? Tongue was the primary site for the case we saw that used FNCLCC. Do not code the data item Grade based on the FNCLCC grade. You may record the FNCLCC grade in a text field. N/A N/A 2007