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: 09/17/2025 00:36 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061106 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "Myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia" reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, myelodysplasia, refractory macrocytic anemia with multilineage dysplasia is reportable. This is a type of refractory anemia. Refractory anemia is reportable.

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
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
20061129 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Head & Neck: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient has bilateral involvement of tonsils with the same histology (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma)? See Discussion. Patient was initially found to have mass on right tonsil. Biopsy of right tonsil on June 16 showed invasive carcinoma, favor squamous cell. On July 17 patient underwent right neck dissection, radical resection of right tonsil tumor and left tonsillectomy. Right tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Left tonsil showed squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated. Microscopic report stated: Right tonsil: Invasion of deep peritonsillar tissue and skeletal muscle. Sections of left tonsil demonstrate squamous cell ca focally distributed in the tonsil, predominantly in situ, but with focal microscopic invasion. Path staged each tonsil specimen. Right tonsil was T2N1. Left tonsil was T1Nx.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code as two primaries. Squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in both left and right tonsils are multiple primaries unless one is stated to be metastatic from the other.

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
20061112

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Skin: In a patient with Muir Torre syndrome, should each of 12 sebaceous carcinomas diagnosed from 1994-2005 be a new primary or should this process be one primary diagnosed in 1994?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Follow the rules in the 2004 manual for determining multiple primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are in different sites (topography code difference in the first two numeric digits after the C), they are separate primaries. When the sebaceous carcinomas are more than two months apart, they are separate primaries.

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
20061018 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Brain and CNS: Is neurofibromatosis a separate and distinct primary in the presence of a longstanding glioma? Does the following show one or two primaries? See Discussion. MRI of Brain: 1. Findings compatible with left optic nerve glioma. 2. Stable enhancing focus in left temporal white matter. Lack of interval change since Dec 2000 suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis and makes more aggressive processes such as astrocytoma less likely. Small aneurysm can not be excluded.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Neurofibromatosis and glioma would be separate brain/CNS primaries.

However, there is only one primary in the case example above: Glioma, left opic nerve. "...suggests a white matter finding typical of neurofibromatosis" is not reportable. "Suggests" is not a reportable term. Therefore, in this example neurofibromatosis is not reportable unless there is a more definitive statement in the record.

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
20061061 CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: Clarify the use of code 25 [Movable axillary lymph node(s), ipsilateral, positive with more than micrometastasis (i.e., at least one metastasis greater than 2 mm)] vs code 60 [Axillary/regional lymph node(s), NOS; Lymph nodes NOS] when surgically removed lymph nodes are positive but the size of the metastasis is not stated. See Discussion.

Note 2 in CS manual states: "If the pathology report indicates that nodes are positive but size of the metastases is not stated, assume the metastases are greater than 0.2mm and code LNs as positive in this field. Use code 60 in the absence of other information about regional nodes."

1. If the LNs are known to be axillary LNs, note 2 seems to imply the size can be assumed to be greater than 0.2mm. Would you code 25 or 60?

2. Both codes 25 and 60 map to N1, node involvement. Do they each mean something else in the evaluation process?

3. What would constitute "absence of other information"?

4. Is the use of 60 over 25 specific to SEER registries or all users?

5. Abstractors are trained to assume LNs are mobile if there is no contrary information. Is this appropriate?

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.

Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 25 for breast when there are positive axillary nodes without internal mammary nodes. Code 25 is used in a couple of situations: a. when you know the lymph nodes are clinically movable and only the axillary nodes are involved; b. when you know the size of the metastasis in an axillary lymph node is more than a micrometastasis (i.e., > 2 mm). Code 60 can be used for any regional lymph node (internal mammary, infra- or supraclavicular, as well as axillary. So you can code to 25 if you have "regular" metastases in axillary lymph nodes only. If you don't know whether the mets are micro or regular, use code 60. Assign code 60 when there are positive regional nodes not further described.

1. Assign code 25 for positive axillary lymph nodes.

2. Codes 25 and 60 may map to N1, N1a, N2a or N3a depending on the coding of SSF3.

3. Assign code 60 when there is not enough information to assign a code from 13 to 50.

4. CS instructions are the same for all users. There are no CS instructions specific to SEER registries.

5. Yes, assume lymph nodes are moveable (not matted, not fixed) when there is no information to the contrary.

 2006
20071118 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: What histology would be coded when the right colon demonstrates a combined adenocarcinoma and high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma [forming the dominant component] arising in a villotubular adenoma and the liver biopsy demonstrates metastatic high grade small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, start with rule H1 in the Single Tumor module. Stop at rule H4. Assign code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

Stop at the first rule that applies. Code histology based on a specimen from the primary site whenever available.

 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
20071047 Ambiguous Terminology: Why do the instructions for this field use the term "accession" rather than "abstract"? The purpose of the new data item "Ambiguous Terminology" is to identify cases that were put into the cancer registry database without a conclusive diagnosis. The decision to accession the case was influenced by ambigous terminology. The emphasis is on accessioning the case rather than abstracting it. 2007
20071077 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Histology--Colon: How many primaries should be reported and how is the histology field(s) coded if the left colon contains two adenocarcinomas and one mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma and each has a different level of invasion? See Discussion. A patient had three tumors in the left colon including an 1) invasive well differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in tubulovillous adenoma with pericolonic subserosal fat invasion 8.5cm, 2) An infiltrative moderately differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria 4cm and 3) an invasive moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma with invasion of muscularis propria, 1/69 nodes positive. The case was coded using rule M8 for one primary, but M10 contradicts; and H13 coding rule for histology 8263/3.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Assuming that all tumors are in the left colon, there are three tumors:

  • Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

  • Colonic adenocarcinoma

    • Multiple Primary Determination

    In the colon MP rules go to the multiple tumors module. Start with M3. Stop at M7 and abstract as a single primary.

    Histology Code

    Go to the histology coding rules, multiple tumors module, and start with H15. Stop at H20 which tells you to code the most invasive tumor. Tumor 1 is the most invasive according to the definition of most invasive in the 2007 SEER Manual, page C-271. Code 8263/3 [Adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

    		 2007