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: 04/21/2025 09:42 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110006 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Are all stages of CLL reportable? See Discussion. If a physician notes the patient has Stage 0 CLL (increasing leukocytosis), is this reportable? CLL Stage is not mentioned in the Hematopoietic Manual or Database, but internet research reveals CLL has five stages (Stage 0, I, II, III, and IV).

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

Yes. All stages of CLL are reportable. CLL has a unique staging system. The Heme DB and Manual do not address the issue of stage. Therefore, stage information is not reported in the Abstractor Notes section of the Heme DB.

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.

2011
20010156 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion. If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.

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.

 2001
20071067 CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is the histology coded to 8010/2 [carcinoma in situ] or to 8130/2 [papillary transitional cell carcinoma, non-invasive] for a 2006 bladder tumor with a final path diagnosis of "mixed non-invasive papillary TCC and flat carcinoma in-situ" and is CS Extension coded to 01 [Papillary transitional cell carcinoma state to be noninvasive]or to 06 [Carcinoma in situ]? See Discussion. If the correct code for histology is 8130/2 and CS Extension is 06, this combination does not pass NAACCR edits.

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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007, code CS Extension to 06 and histology to 8130/2. Override the NAACCR edit.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, 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.

 2007
20031202 Surgery of Primary Site--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a surgery titled "Parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection"? See Description. If the operative report is not titled "total parotidectomy," can we assume that less than total parotidectomy was done? Can we assume that "facial nerve dissection" and "facial nerve monitoring" are other ways of stating "facial nerve spared"?

Use the best information available to determine whether or not all of the parotid has been removed. It is important to read the entire operative report and review the content of the pathology report. The Op report will usually include wording about how much was removed, and this can be confirmed by the path report. Do not make assumptions about the extent of the surgery based solely on the title used on the operative report.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code 30 [less than total parotidectomy] can be used when the parotid is not totally removed, but the exact type of partial parotidectomy cannot be determined. "Facial nerve monitoring" and "Facial nerve dissection" are synonymous with "facial nerve sparing."

 2003
20120074 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient is diagnosed in 2004 with extranodal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach followed by a 2011 diagnosis of DLBCL involving abdominal lymph nodes? See Discussion. In 2004 a patient's extranodal DLBCL was treated with a partial gastrectomy at another facility. A recurrence of DLBCL was diagnosed in 2011 by a fine needle aspiration of abdominal lymph nodes. The patient presented to this facility for chemotherapy.

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

This case is accessioned as a single primary. Code the histology to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] and diagnosis date to 2004. Per Rule M2, abstract as a single primary when there is a single histology.

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
20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

 2007
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013
20110072 Multiplicity Counter/Date Multiple Tumors--Bladder: How are these fields coded when multiple tumors were present at the time of diagnosis and another tumor diagnosed a year later is determined to be the same primary? See Discussion. In November 2007, a nephroureterectomy showed an invasive TCC of the renal pelvis and a separate in situ TCC of the ureter. The Multiplicity Counter field is coded 02 and the Date Multiple Tumors is coded to November 2007. In December 2008, an in situ bladder tumor is found. Are the multiplicity fields to be updated to reflect the new bladder tumor?

Multiplicity Counter field was initially coded 02. Change the code to 03 because the subsequent, additional tumor was determined to be the same primary. Update the Multiplicity Counter field only once. If additional tumors are determined to be the same primary for this case, it is not necessary to update this field again.

Date of Multiple Tumors field was initially coded November 2007. Multiple tumors were present at the time of the initial diagnosis. Do not change the date of this field when additional tumors are subsequently diagnosed. This data item reflects the earliest date that multiple tumors were present. See example 2 under #3 on page 81 of the 2010 SEER manual.

2011
20091012 MP/H Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: If the final diagnosis states "see microscopic description," can the micro information be used to code the histology? See Discussion. In regards to coding histology for 2007 and forward cases, we are instructed to use the final diagnosis, and any addenda or comments associated with the final diagnosis. We are not to use the microscopic description. However, we are seeing pathology reports with a final diagnosis that also includes the notation "see microscopic description" or "see description". Example: "Left Parotid: High grade carcinoma involving deep lobe with marginal extension. See description." The microscopic description goes on to describe the carcinoma in more detail, which includes a statement "consistent with the ductal type of primary parotid carcinoma." Can we use this microscopic description or not?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

When the final diagnosis indicates that the microscopic section contains the detailed diagnosis, use the microscopic description to code the histology.

Otherwise, code from the final diagnosis only and not from the microscopic description. The final diagnosis is usually the pathologist's conclusion after consideration of the various choices listed in the microscopic description. The histology code should represent the pathologist's final conclusion.

 2009
20091038 CS Tumor Size--Breast: Do the tumor size instructions in the CS Manual take priority over those in the SEER manual? See Discussion. In regards to priority order of sources to be used in coding size for breast and lung, we are instructed to use the site-specific instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual over the general instructions in the CS Manual (see SINQ 20061109). Thus, physical exam size would be used over an imaging size. I&R question 2389 instructs registrars to use an imaging size over a physical exam size. This inconsistency creates confusion for them. Do the answers given in I&R not take into account the information in the SEER Manual? As a SEER Registry, which rules do we tell our hospitals to use? Are ACoS accredited hospitals required to use I&R over SINQ?

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.The current SEER instructions and the CS instructions for source of tumor size information are the same. The tumor size priority source instruction in the 2004 SEER manual is not included in the 2007 SEER manual. SINQ 20061109 has been updated for clarification. There is no conflict between SEER instructions and I&R instructions at this time. SEER and the CoC collaborate, endeavoring to provide consistent instructions and to resolve inconsistencies.

 2009