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: 09/16/2025 04:33 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061110 Histology (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How is a "sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC)" coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8020 [carcinoma, undifferentiated]. "Sinonasal" refers to anatomic location of primary site not histology.

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.

 2006
20061076 Laterality--Breast: Should laterality be coded to 9 [Paired site but no information concerning laterality] or to the side with the positive lymph nodes for a case in which no breast mass is found but positive axillary lymph nodes are found on only one side? Code laterality of the primary site to the side with the positive nodes when there are unilateral positive nodes and the laterality of the primary site is otherwise unknown. 2006
20061099 CS Extension--Lung: If only a "single" cytology is performed on pericardial fluid and it is negative, can Note 6 B, which states that pleural effusion [code 72] is coded as malignant unless there are "multiple" negative cytologies, be used to infer that the pericardial fluid should also be coded as involvement?

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.

No, do not apply the instructions for pleural effusion to pericardial effusion. Do not code a pericardial effusion proven negative by cytology in CS Extension.

 2006
20061014 Surgery of Primary Site--Lung: Is this field coded to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy] or 33 [Lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection] when a lobectomy specimen includes 2 AP window lymph nodes? See Discussion.

LUL lobectomy: 1.7cm apical tumor, DX=mod well diff subpleural SCC, with involvement of pleural surface. 3 peribronchial LN neg and 2 AP window LNs neg. Stage T2N0.

1. No lymph node dissection or sampling was stated to be done

2. The lobectomy specimen contained the LNs

3. Scope of regional LN surgery is coded

Would the surgery to primary site code 30 or 33?

 Code surgery of primary site to 30 [Resection of lobe or lobectomy]. According to the information provided, there was no lymph node dissection in this case. The 2 AP window nodes were obtained as part of the lobectomy specimen. 2006
20061034 Primary Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: Is the primary site code C809 [Unknown primary site] preferred over the use of a site code for an organ system (e.g., biliary tract, NOS) or a specific primary site (e.g., colon, NOS) when these are "favored" but other potential sites "cannot be excluded"? See Discussion.

Case 1 - CT: Mult pulm nodules, bilat pleural effusions; paraaortic, paracaval, celiac lymphadenopathy. Lytic lesions L4&L5.

Bx L3: Met pd adenoca. Based on the histopathologic features and the results of the immunostains, cholangiocarcinoma is regarded as the most likely primary. However, other possible primaries include pancreas, stomach, and (remotely) lung.

Should primary be coded as C26.9, digestive organ, NOS?

Case 2 - CT: Mult liver masses. Liver Bx: Mod diff adenoca. The most likely primary sites include cholangiocarcinoma, stomach and pancreas.

FDx per attending: Met adenocarcinoma to the liver, probably biliary origin.

What primary site code do we use?

Case 3 - Admitting Dx: Unknown primary with mets to lungs, liver and cerebellar area. Liver Bx: Met adenoca. The combination of morphological and immunohistochemical staining favor a colon primary. However other possibilities include cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ca.

Should we code site as C18.9 or C26.9?

Code the primary site according to the physician's opinion. An ill-defined site code or an NOS code for the organ system is preferred over C809 [Unknown primary site] whenever possible. Code C809 only when there is not enough information to use an ill-defined or NOS code.

Case 1 and Case 2 - Assign code C249 [Biliary tract, NOS]. Based on the available information, the physicians believe these are most likely biliary primaries.

Case 3 - Assign code C189 [Colon]. According to the available information, the physician believes this is most likely a colon primary.

 2006
20061077 Chemotherapy--Breast: Is chemotherapy administered for inflammatory breast cancer also coded as therapy for an in situ tumor in the contralateral breast? Yes. Because chemotherapy would likely affect both primaries, code it as treatment for both the in situ and the inflammatory breast cancers. 2006
20061041 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: How is SSF 6 coded for this site when there is only one Gleason number documented and the number is less than 5 (e.g., Gleasons 3)?

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 999 [unknown or no information]. Note 1 was revised in September 2006 to clarify this situation.

Note 1 states "If only one number is given and it is less than or equal to 5, code the total score to 999, unknown or no

information.

 2006
20061135 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2006
20061130 CS Extension--Lung: How is extension coded if there is only one cytology done on a pleural effusion that is negative for carcinoma (but shows an exudate) and there is no clinical assessment of the pleural effusion found in the medical record? See Discussion. CS lung extension note 6 provides instructions from the SEER manual and also from the AJCC manual. Per SEER manual, "ignore the effusion that is negative for tumor." Do we ignore the pleural effusion for the case in question because it was negative? Per AJCC manual, "most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor. In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element." For the case in question, pleural fluid was examined only once and clinical judgment is not available. As a SEER registry, do we follow the SEER portion of the note and ignore the pleural effusion? Or do we code extension as involving pleural effusion because it was an exudate?

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.A single negative pleural effusion by itself does not impact the coding of extension.

The SEER note does not alter the AJCC note and the AJCC note does not alter the SEER note. They are two separate statements from two separate staging authorities. Registries follow both notes. For this case, ignore the pleural effusion because there is no clinical judgment available and there was only one cytology on the effusion.

 2006
20061047 CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Peritoneum: How are these fields coded for extraovarian peritoneal carcinomas presenting with multiple peritoneal implants? See Discussion.

Patient presented with large omental cake and multiple peritoneal implants including implants on the rectosigmoid serosa and right ovary. Path revealed papillary serous adenocarcinoma consistent with peritoneal primary.

Per AJCC Manual, extraovarian peritoneal carcinoma is usually staged with the ovarian staging classification.

We understand that the CS Manual will eventually be revised to include staging for extraovarian peritoneal primaries. In the meantime, how do we use the existing CS scheme for peritoneum to code these cases?

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 [unknown] and CS Mets at DX 99 [unknown].

The issue has been sent to the CS steering committee for resolution. This answer will be updated when the steering committee provides a resolution.

 2006