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: 01/19/2025 16:55 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071042 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be abstracted when two tumors occur in one breast and both are ductal with the smaller tumor representing tubular carcinoma [variant]? See Discussion.

Right breast partial excision: Two invasive foci, one measuring 0.2cm and the second measuring 0.5cm. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma with the smaller representing tubular carcinoma (variant).

The breast histology table does not list tubular as a type of ductal, however, the pathologist states ductal carcinoma, tubular variant.

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this is two primaries of the right breast, using the 2007 MP/H rules. For the purposes of the 2007 rules, tubular is not a specific type of duct. Duct carcinoma (8500) and tubular carcinoma (8211) are different at the second digit of the histology code. Rule M12 applies, making these separate primaries. 2007
20071041

Reportability/Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is pyridoxine-responsive sideroblastic anemia (SA) reportable and is pyridoxine coded as chemotherapy for SA and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS)? See Discussion.

Patient has refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts on bone marrow path. The physician mentions it might be due to pyridoxine deficiency. Per the SEER*Rx, pyridoxine (aka Vitamin B6) is not coded as treatment. What causes RARS and SA? Is pyridoxine treatment for either disease process? Or is the pyridoxine just treating one aspect of the anemia? The patient has no other treatment but this.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Sideroblastic anemia (SA) is not reportable. SA is not the same as refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS). Therefore, do not code pyridoxine administered for SA as therapy. If the patient had RARS that "might be due to pyridoxine deficiency," the replacement pyridoxine would not be coded as chemotherapy because it does not control or kill malignant cells. If the pyridoxine was successful in alleviating the refractory anemia, the RARS would be reversible and would not meet the criteria for a reportable blood disease; i.e. irreversible, clonal.

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.

 2007
20071040 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Melanoma: Is there a difference between multiple primary rules M6 and M7 because both rules state that tumors occurring more than 60 days apart are to be reported as multiple primaries? See Discussion.

Rule M6 clearly states that an invasive melanoma occurring more than 60 days after an in situ melanoma is a multiple primary. However M7 states that any melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart are multiple primaries. Since M7 does not state malignant melanomas diagnosed more than 60 days apart, this implies that any scenario:

in situ following an invasive,

invasive following an in situ,

in situ following an in situ,

or invasive following an invasive

are all multiple primaries if more than 60 days apart. If that is the intent of M7, then M6 is totally unnecessary. If the intent of M7 is only for an invasive following an invasive, then the word malignant needs to be inserted as the first word of rule M7.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, M7 is intended to apply to in situ and invasive melanomas. Therefore, M6 and M7 are repetitive.

This will be corrected when revisions are made to the MP/H rules. In the meantime, both M6 and M7 result in multiple primaries so it does not matter which rule is used.

 2007
20071039 Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: If an initial bone marrow diagnosis is "...more compatible with CMML/MPD" and within three months the final diagnosis per the oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation," is histology coded to CMML or AML? See Discussion.

09/06 BM Bx elsewhere was "compatible with MDS but more compatible with CMML/MPD" per MD notes.

10/06 BM Bx "...poor prognosis MDS, best classified as RAEB-2"

11/06 BM Bx "myeloproliferative CMML with leukemic transformation"

(on evaluation for BMT)

12/12/06 Pt was admitted with rapidly progressive disease & was started on chemo to try to get into remission for BMT. Final dx by oncologist is "MPD/CMML with acute myeloid leukemia transformation".

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code CMML for this case. Code the histology at initial diagnosis. This patient had rapid progression, but the initial diagnosis was "more compatible with CMML/MPD."

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.

 2007
20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071037 CS Extension--Breast: Is the term "erosion" the same as "ulceration"?

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.

"Erosion" is not synonymous with "ulceration" when coding CS extension for breast.

 2007
20071036 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: Is a "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" coded to 8260/3 [Papillary adenocarcinoma] per the ICD-O-3 because it lists "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid" as a synonym for that code or should it be coded to 8050 [Papillary carcinoma, NOS]? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8260 [papilary carcinoma of the thyroid]. 2007
20071035 CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.

Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.

Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?

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 CS extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.

Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.

 2007
20071034 Histology--Corpus uteri: Because coding a pathology final diagnosis of "serous carcinoma" for an endometrial primary to 8441/3 triggers the site/histology error in the SEER Edits, should histology be coded to 8010/3 [Carcinoma, NOS] instead? Assign histology code 8441 [serous carcinoma] and override the edit. Endometrium with serous carcinoma is NOT one of the "impossible" site / histology combinations. 2007
20071031 Histology--Lymphoma: How is a "lymphocytic lymphoma of follicular center cell origin" coded?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Assign code 9690 [Follicular lymphoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Lymphoid tumors, follicular lymphoma is a neoplasm of follicle center B cells which has at least a partially follicular pattern.

Assign code 9695 for follicular lymphoma grade 1, 9691 for follicular lymphoma grade 2, and 9698 for follicular lymphoma grade 3.

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.

 2007