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: 04/11/2026 19:41 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081080 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Site Specific Factor--Head and Neck: How should these fields be coded when the information is from an out of state data exchange and the record provides no supporting text, all the required fields are not coded and the codes that are provided are in conflict? See Discussion. A parotid case with CS LN coded to 10 [single positive ipsilateral regional node]; Regional LNs Positive coded to 68 and Regional LNs Examined coded to 74. No SSFs were coded. Based on the number of nodes coded as positive, the CS LN code was incorrect. Because the only information available to the central registry was that multiple regional LNs NOS were positive, we coded CS LN to 80 [lymph nodes NOS] and coded all SSFs to 999. Upon running the SEER edits, this case popped up on edits yielding a CS Site-Specific Factor codes, CS Lymph Nodes and Head/Neck Schemas conflict. Provide some guidance as how to properly code CS LNs & SSFs 1-6 for this case given the very limited information provided to us?

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.This is an unusual situation with conflicting information. If possible, request the pathology report and/or audit the case.

If you cannot obtain any further information or clarification, there are two choices:

  • Code CS LN's 80; code SSF 1 & 2 999, code SSF 3-6 000.

  • Code CS LN's 99; code SSF 1-6 999.

    		•  2008
    		20081079 Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Kidney: Is a case reportable if a biopsy diagnosis of "suggestive of oncocytoma, malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded" follows a CT scan that was read as "suspicious for carcinoma"? See Discussion. Pt is nursing home resident. CT abdomen/pelvis shows a "mass in the right kidney, highly suspicious for renal cell carcinoma". CT-guided needle biopsy performed with final diagnosis: "Neoplasm suggestive of oncocytoma. A malignant neoplasm cannot be excluded." No other information is available. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. The suspicious CT finding was biopsied and not proven to be malignant. "Suggestive of" is not a reportable ambiguous term. 2008
    		20081077 MP/H Rules--Ovary: How do you code histology for a diagnosis of "clear cell CA, predominately cystic." For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8310 [Clear cell carcinoma]. Cystic describes the appearance of the tumor. Clear cell is the histologic type. Code clear cell carcinoma 8310/3. Rule H11 applies. 2008
    		20081076 Reportability--Lung: Is carcinoid tumorlet of the lung a reportable disease? See Discussion. The literature on this is rather ambiguous as to whether these tumorlets (defined as <0.5 cm) are benign, such as atypical hyperplasia, or actual carcinoid tumors. Carcinoid tumorlets are not reportable. The histology can be similar to typical carcinoids; however, they are <5 mm in diameter and are benign/nonreportable. 2008
    		20081075 Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: SEER Program Manual instructions state, "Portugese, Brazilians and Filipinos are not Spanish; Code non-Spanish (code 0)." How is that determined? Is that based SOLELY on birthplace? See Discussion.

    The following are scenarios for which we would like clarification on how to code Spanish Ethnicity.

  • Birthplace Portugal; text states Spanish, south American or European Spanish

  • Birthplace Brazil, last name is on Spanish surname list; pt is married female. Text states "Hispanic female, NOS"

  • Birthplace Brazil or Portugal, text states patient is "Mexican", last name is on Spanish surname list

    • Information about Spanish origin is available for both of these cases; code the race as Hispanic. Use the SEER manual instruction when the only information available is that the patient was born in Portugal, Brazil or the Philippines. In the absence of additional information, do not assume Hispanic. However, if additional information is available stating that the patient is Hispanic, code as Hispanic.

    Spanish Surname or Origin Scenarios

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 6 [Spanish, NOS; Hispanic, NOS; Latino, NOS]

  • 1 [Mexican (includes Chicano)]

    		• 2008
    		20081074 Primary site/Histology: Does SEER accept the site/type combination of lymph nodes (C77.0-C77.9) with the histology of either 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) or 9827 (Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma)? See Discussion. There is a discrepancy between the SEER Site/Type table and the CS histology codes under Lymph Nodes.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:These are not "impossible" site/histology edits. You can override them. However, if the lymph nodes are involved and a lymphoma histology is available, the lymphoma histology should be coded rather than leukemia histology. For example, assign histology code 9670 (Malignant lymphoma, small B lymphocytic, NOS) instead of 9823 (B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphocytic lymphoma) if the disease is identified in the lymph nodes.

    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
    		20081073

    CS Extension/Ambiguous terminology--Pancreas: Should an exception be made for "abuts" or "encased/encasing" regarding CS pancreas extension? See Discussion.

    According to the CS Manual regarding ambiguous terminology, we do not accept "abuts" or "encased/encasing" as involvement. According to the March/April 2008 issue of "CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians", vol 58, number 2, an article concerning Pancreas staging by M.D. Anderson researchers/clinicians recommends defining unresectable involvement of the celiac axis/mesenteric artery with the terms "abutment" as involvement of 180 degrees or less of the circumference of the vessel, and "encasement" as more than 180 degree involvement. A large comprehensive cancer center in our area has already adopted these guidelines.

    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.Follow the current CS instructions regarding ambiguous terminology. "Abuts" and "encased/encasing" are not involvement.

    The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer provided the following in response to this question: This concept can be considered for CS version 2, but it would need to be made in conjunction with acceptance of that same theory in AJCC 7th Edition so that the stage can be derived. Many times what can be defined and accepted in a closed environment of a single institution research project cannot be duplicated and accepted across the nation and in every community facility. Would pathologists specify the > or < 180 degree involvement in every pathology report? It would also have to be reviewed to see if this idea has been accepted by the larger oncology community, or just the idea of a single institution.

    		 2008
    		20081071 CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Should we assume that the invasive portion of the tumor is being referred to when a pathologist provides only a single tumor size but includes both invasive and in situ descriptors when discussing the size of that tumor? See Discussion.

    There seems to be subtle variations in wording and punctuation in these cases. Would these three examples be coded the same way?

    Examples:

  • "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present"

  • "2 cm invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS present"

  • "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm. DCIS present"

    • 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 SSF6 050 [invasive and insitu components present, entire size coded in CS TS, size of invasive not stated, proportion invasive and insitu not known] when the size of the invasive portion is not provided and clarification is not available.

    If possible, obtain clarification from the pathologist for phrases like these and document in a text field. For example, a pathologist may confirm that when he/she states "invasive ductal carcinoma 2.0 cm, DCIS present" the size of the invasive portion is 2 cm. If so, code CS tumor size 020 and SSF6 020 and explain in a text field.

    		 2008
    		20081070

    CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at DX--Ovary: How are the following lymph node regions/chains coded in the Collaborative Stage schema for ovary?

    1. pericolonic

    2. pelvic, NOS

    3. mesenteric, NOS

    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.Revised 7-17-09

    Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 for involvement of pelvic lymph nodes, NOS.

    Code involvement of pericolonic nodes or mesenteric nodes, NOS in CS lymph nodes.

    		 2008
    		20081069 Multiplicity Counter: Should this field be coded to 99 for cases of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)? See Discussion. The MP/H rules state to abstract these cases as a single primary. The Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary field is coded as a single primary with a value of 32 (FAP with carcinoma), but the Multiplicity Counter seems to be unknown. Assign code 99 [Multiple tumors present, unknown how many] for cases of FAP when the number of tumors is not stated. 2008