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: 04/29/2026 17:58 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081122 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: Patient has single invasive left breast tumor diagnosed in 2008. Final pathology diagnosis is "Invasive solid papillary carcinoma". No mention of ductal in report. What is histology?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

As of July 2010:

Code the histology 8503 [Infiltrating papillary adenocarcinoma].

This is solid papillary, not solid AND papillary carcinoma. Solid is an adjective modifying papillary, in other words, a subtype of papillary. We do not have a code for solid papillary, so we code to the NOS, papillary using rule H14.

 2008
20081119

Reportability/Date of diagnosis--Liver: Does the final diagnosis of a scan have higher priority than the findings in the discussion in the body of the report? See Discussion.

A patient with liver cancer becomes transplant eligible when the tumor is 2 cm in size. Frequently, liver tumors will be watched (no biopsy) for months until they meet the 2 cm size criteria. In the meantime, multiple scans will describe the tumor using variations of ambiguous terms that drift in and out of reportablility. One day the tumor is labeled "presumed hepatocellular carcinoma." Weeks later it is back to "worrisome for hepatoma." A single scan will use different terms in different sections of the report.

Example case: Abdominal CT reveals a 1 cm liver lesion. Per the discussion portion of the scan, the lesion is consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma. Per final diagnosis: 1 cm liver lesion, possibly hepatocellular carcinoma. Is this report diagnostic of cancer? Would the date of this report be the date of diagnosis? (Patient did receive a liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma months later.)

When a reportable ambiguous term is used in one part of a report or the medical record and a non-reportable ambiguous term is used in another part of the report or the medical record, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

The example above is reportable. "Consistent with" is a reportable ambiguous term. Accept "consistent with" over the non-reportable term "possibly."

The date of this report would be the date of diagnosis if this is the earliest report using reportable terminology.

 2008
20081109

MP/H Rules--Breast: Patient has 2 existing primaries, both of left breast and both were pure lobular carcinoma, one was diagnosed in 1994 and the other in 2005. Now a biopsy in 2008 of a supraclavicular lymph node (laterality unknown) and subcutaneous scalp tissue show metastatic DUCTAL carcinoma. Per path report, breast is the primary site. Slides from prior tumors were not reviewed. Should this be made a new primary or assumed to be metastasis from the prior breast tumors? See Discussion.

A modified radical mastectomy was performed on 10/6/94.

The 2007 MP/H rules tell us that multiple ductal and lobular tumors of breast are a single primary; however, the rules do not apply to metastatic tumors.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

Since the primary site is unproven but stated to be breast, and since the laterality is unknown, we cannot determine that the 2008 diagnosis is the same as the 2005 or the 1994 diagnosis.

Revise this case accordingly if more information becomes available.

 2008
20081058 Histology--Brain and CNS: How is the histology coded for a mixed glioneuronal tumor, such as a papillary glioneuronal tumor? The best code available at this time is 9505/1 [Ganglioglioma, NOS]. 2008
20081040 Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic: If a JAK2 positive myeloproliferative disorder is reportable, how should histology be coded?

Please discuss the significance of JAK2 point mutation.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with increased megakaryocytes associated with JAK2 point mutation consistent with myeloproliferative syndrome. Path comment: While the morphologic changes would be compatible with a myeloproliferative syndrome, they are not specific for this as similar findings can be seen in reactive conditions. However, a molecular diagnostic test demonstrated a positive JAK2 point mutation which would support the diagnosis of myeloproliferative syndrome. In summary, the combined histologic and molecular diagnostic findings support a myeloproliferative syndrome. The differential diagnosis would be between polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Subsequent clinical diagnosis: polycythemia vera.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Follow the instructions in the SEER manual on pages 1-4 to determine reportability.

Code the histology using all information available for the case. If the clinician reviews the case and states a particular histology based on his/her review, code that histology.

The clinician has access to all of the information available for this case. He/she uses his/her expertise to form a clinical diagnosis.

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
20081011 Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion. Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed.

Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.

CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].

Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].

The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery.

 2008
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
20081108 CS Extension--Pancreas: How is this field coded for a head of pancreas primary with involvement of the inferior vena cava?

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 extension code 54 [Blood vessel(s) major]. The inferior vena cava is one of the major blood vessels.

The inferior vena cava is located just behind the head of the pancreas. The hepatic artery, the superior mesenteric vessels and the portal vein are nearby.

 2008
20081038

Histology/Primary site: What is the correct histology code for sarcomatoid carcinoma of the mandible diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion.

Left mandible resection: Malignant tumor, favor high grade sarcomatoid carcinoma. Please see comment.

Comment: Considering the focal stain with P63 and the consult from Mayo Clinic done on the previous biopsy, the diagnosis of sarcomatoid carcinoma is more likely.

Gross: left mandible resection...sectioning reveals a...mass that has replaced the majority of the mandibular bone and is at the medial, anterior lateral and posterior soft tissue margins and comes to within 2.4 cm of the anterior boney resection margin and 1.9 cm of the smooth articular temporal mandibular joint surface.

The combination of C411 and 8033/3 is impossible (with no override available).

Code the primary site C031 [Mandibular gingiva]. Code the histology 8033 [sarcomatoid carcinoma]. This tumor originated in the mandibular gingiva and invaded the bone (mandible) -- It did not originate in the bone. This type of tumor does not originate in bone.

 2008
20081033 Ambiguous terminology: Is the phrase "malignancy is highly considered" reportable given that the phrase "considered to be malignant" is reportable per SINQ 20061094?

"Malignancy is highly considered" is not a reportable ambiguous term.

Diagnoses qualified by the phrase "considered to be malignant" are reportable because this phrase is interpreted as "This diagnosis is malignant."

 2008