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: 05/16/2026 04:35 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071101 Multiplicity Counter/CS Tumor Size: The Multiplicity Counter rule 6c states "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as diffuse". Is code 99 used in all circumstances when tumor size is coded to 998? See Discussion. The CS manual lists esophagus, stomach, familila/familial polyposis (colon), lung, and breast as the only circumstances when code 998 is valid. If this is correct, then if TS is coded to 998, then Multiplicity Counter must be 99. If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If the number of tumors is not known, assign code 99. If "diffuse" is the only information available to describe the tumor, assign code 99. 2007
20071029 CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.

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.Code 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.

Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.

 2007
20091124 CS Eval--Lung: How is the CS Reg Nodes Eval field to be coded when the FNA of a paratracheal lymph node is positive for adenocarcinoma and the patient subsequently undergoes neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by an excision of multiple lymph node fragments that show adenocarcinoma? See Discussion. The CSv1 scheme for lung shows that code 1 under CS Reg Nodes Eval is a path staging basis. However, the definition for code 1 also states that no regional lymph nodes were removed for examination. Would we use code 1 because the case represents path staging basis? If we select code 5 because regional lymph nodes were dissected, the staging basis would be clinical. If we select code 6, the staging basis would be y.

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.

Use code "6" for the CS LN evaluation field. As explained on page 113 in the 2007 SEER Manual, when post-operative disease is more extensive despite neoadjuvant therapy, this can be coded in the evaluation field. In this case, only an FNA was done on lymph nodes pre-operatively, but actual lymph nodes were removed and documented in the post-neoadjuvant excision of the lymph nodes which documented that they are histologically positive -- proving that the neoadjuvant therapy did not work.

 2009
20100012 Date of diagnosis--Breast: How is the date of diagnosis coded when a mammogram describes only "suspicious calcifications" with a BIRADS category of 4 assigned and the suspicious calcifications are subsequently proven to be malignant on biopsy? See Discussion. The date of diagnosis is the date when cancer was first diagnosed by a recognized medical practitioner, whether clinically or microscopically confirmed. Ambiguous terminology used to determine reportability is listed in part I of FORDS pages 3-4. No BIRADS categories are included and, therefore, should not be used by the registrar to determine the earliest date of diagnosis. In addition, the term "suspicious for calcification" is not reportable, because calcification is benign condition, unless the physician describes it as malignant. Reference 46637, 12/29/2009 FORDS - In the last paragraph there is a statement that no BIRAD categories are listed...cannot be used to determine earliest date of diagnosis. Does the SEER Program follow this guideline? The date of diagnosis for this case is the date of the biopsy. There is no reportable diagnosis on the mammogram. 2010
20130017

Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is reactive thrombocytosis reportable? See Discussion.

The doctor's impression: "Thrombocytosis, mild without other obvious hematologic difficulty. I would be most suspicious for early iron deficiency related to her prior menometrorrhagia. Would limit initial evaluation to iron studies, review of peripheral smear, and hepatic profile."

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

Reactive thrombocytosis is not reportable and is not an alternative name for essential thrombocythemia [9962/3].

Only the following are listed as alternate names for essential thrombocythemia in the Heme DB:

  • Essential hemorrhagic thrombocythemia

  • Essential thrombocytosis

  • ET

  • Hemorrhagic thrombocythemia

  • Idiopathic hemorrhagic thrombocythemia

  • Idiopathic thrombocythemia

  • Idiopathic thrombocytosis

  • Primary thrombocythemia

  • Primary thrombocytosis

  • Thrombocythemia vera

    • 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.

    		2013
    		20010002 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion. The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?

    For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

    Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."

    		 2001
    		20110132 Reportability/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is a diagnosis of "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" reportable? If so, how is the histology to be coded? See Discussion. The final diagnosis of a bone marrow biopsy dated 10/99/2010 was "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder." The differential diagnosis includes atypical small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia and marginal zone lymphoma. Mantle cell lymphoma is very unlikely based on BCL1 negativity. Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma is also excluded due to the absence of a plasma cell component (CD138 negative).

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

    Yes. The term "small B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoproliferative disorder" is reportable. Code the histology to 9591/3 [non-Hodgkin lymphoma, NOS] per Rule PH28. When there is a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disorder and any lymphoma, code the lymphoma histology.

    The information in the discussion is reflective of the difficulty in diagnosing hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. The differential diagnosis indicates that a number of possible specific lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses that have been ruled out, which explains why the final diagnosis is non-Hodgkin, NOS.

    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
    		20081017 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Leukemia: Is a 'suspicious peripheral blood smear' the same as a suspicious cytology? See Discussion. The final diagnosis on the path report for a peripheral blood smear is stated to be "suspicious for malignancy." The microscopic description states that the "lymphoid population raises the concern of chronic lymphocytic leukemia." Nothing further was done. Is this a reportable case? If so, should it be coded as a leukemia or a malignancy NOS?

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Do not accession a leukemia case based only on a "suspicious" peripheral blood smear. If a confirmed diagnosis, clinical confirmation or further information becomes available later, accession the case at that time.

    For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

    		 2008
    		20021098 Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: What code is used to represent the histology with a final diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, signet ring type when the comment suggests a "mixed histologic pattern"? See discussion. The following is the comment from the pathology report: "The histologic features reveal a tumor with a mixed histologic pattern. A diffuse infiltrate of signet ring cells and a second pattern of amphophilic polygonal cells. The latter elements suggest neuroendocrine differentiation, but IHC stains fail to reveal endocrine attributes in these cells."

    For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

    Code the Histology field to 8490/3 [Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma]. Code the specific subtype when the diagnosis says "generic carcinoma, something type." Neuroendocrine differentiation was suspected, but not supported by the IHC stains. A combination code is not appropriate for this example.

    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.

    		 2002
    		20130009 Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion. The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade?

    For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.

    This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document.

    		 2013