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: 10/16/2025 15:06 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20120004 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is grade coded for a malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code grade to 6 [B-cell] for the histology malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma, large B-cell type, with features consistent with T-cell rich variant [9680/3]. Under the Definition section for histology code 9680/3 it states there are morphologic variants of the disease: centroblastic, immunoblastic, plasmablastic, T-cell/histiocyte-rich, anaplastic.

Rule G3 in the Heme Manual confirms the grade listed in the Heme DB under its Grade section for the histology 9680/3. While the patient presented with a variant of DLBCL that is T-cell/histiocyte rich, it is still a B-cell phenotype. The grade is coded accordingly.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2012
20071081 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?

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 IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.

 2007
20110145 MP/H Rules/Recurrence--Skin: If a pathologist does not review the August 2008 slides, how many primaries are accessioned for a patient diagnosed and treated for a dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the left upper inner arm in August 2008 who subsequently had a "recurrence" noted in October 2010 located in the scar of the original primary?

Abstract as a single primary: dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [8832/3] of the left upper inner arm [C446] diagnosed in August 2008.

The rationale for this answer was provided by subject matter experts. The physician specialists for soft tissue and bone replied as follows:

Low-grade sarcomas tend to recur locally. Because this tumor recurred in same area, i.e. scar of prior surgery, and recurred in this period of time, this is a local recurrence. Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans is a low grade tumor which can recur many years following tumor excision.

2011
20051094 Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as "well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4"? For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above. 2005
20071123

MP/H Rules/Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Colon: Please clarify how to code diagnostic confirmation when there is no mention of a malignant polyp in the pathology report of a familial polyposis case given this statement: "Even if you have only one malignant polyp it is a single primary if there is a diagnosis of FAP. Even if there is no mention of a malignant polyp, if there is a diagnosis of FAP you will use this rule."

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

In the very unlikely event of a FAP diagnosis with no malignancy, the case would not be reportable.

When FAP is diagnosed along with a colon malignancy, it is presumed that the malignancy originated in one of the numerous polyps, even if this is not explicitly stated. Use rule M3 for any colon malignancy (in a polyp, frank, or not stated) with a diagnosis of FAP and abstract as a single primary.

2007
20021181 Radiation/Chemotherapy: How do we code radiation and chemotherapy when the only statement we have is that the patient is "referred to either an oncologist or a radiation therapist"? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: A referral does not mean that the radiation therapy or chemotherapy was actually recommended. These cases need follow-back to see if treatment was recommended and/or administered. Some registries code these cases as 8 [Radiation recommended, unknown if administered] or 88 [Chemotherapy recommended, unknown if it was administered] and routinely review all cases with 8 or 88 codes. Upon review, the codes are updated depending on the information found. If there is no information available, the code 8 or 88 is changed to 0 or 00 [None]. 2002
20031034

Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney, renal pelvis: What codes are used to represent the histologies of 1) "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" and 2) "chromophil renal cell carcinoma?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code "chromophil" to 8260 [papillary renal cell]. According to our pathologist consultant, in the case of chromophil, most authors regard this as more or less synonymous with papillary renal cell [8260]. "More or less" because papillary is an old term descriptive of the microscopic structure, while chromophil is newer and based on the cytology; because most of the latter are papillary the current usage assumes them to be equivalent.

1) The diagnosis "renal papillary (chromophil) carcinoma" tells us that the pathologist who wrote it was seeing both pattern and cytologic features, and is regarding papillary equivalent to chromophil; thus, code to 8260.

2) Code "chromophil renal cell carcinoma" to 8260.

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
20120036 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site be coded to C779 or C809 when a patient is diagnosed at another facility with mantle cell lymphoma and the staging bone marrow biopsy performed at this facility is negative? There is no available information concerning where the lymphoma originated.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per PH Rule22, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS].

Rule PH22 is a default rule for lymphomas that is used when there is no other information regarding the primary site and the Heme DB does not indicate a primary site under its Primary Site(s) section. Rule PH27, code the primary site to unknown [C809], does not apply. Only use C809 [unknown] as the primary site when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s).

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2012
20240068

Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Ovary:  How is histology coded for an ovary case with a diagnosis of “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” in 2023? This term is not in the Solid Tumor Rules and ICD-O 3.2 updates. Is “high grade papillary serous carcinoma” equivalent to “high grade serous carcinoma” (8461) or to “papillary serous adenocarcinoma” (8441) with high grade captured only in the Grade fields, or is there another more appropriate code?

Assign code 8461/3 for high-grade papillary serous carcinoma.

 2024
20031191 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].

 2003