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: 12/13/2025 06:25 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081024 CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is SSF6 coded when CS tumor size is coded from a clinical report, not from pathology? See Discussion. A breast ultrasound displays a 2 cm tumor. Core biopsy diagnosis is lobular carcinoma in situ. No further record for patient. Tumor size coded to 020. Should SSF 6 be coded to 010 "Entire tumor reported as in situ (no invasive component reported)" because it was pathologically confirmed, or to 888 because size was coded based on a clinical exam - the ultrasound?

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 888 [Clinical tumor size coded]. When the size recorded in CS Tumor Size is not determined pathologically, 888 must be coded in SSF6. Note: The code in SSF 6 pertains to pathologic tumor size. It describes the relationship of invasive and in situ tumor in the tumor size coded.

 2008
20081063 MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when a patient has a mass at 6:00 that showed poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma and a hypoechoic nodule at 9:00 that was excised with no real tumor present there though path showed angiolymphatic invasion by carcinoma throughout the entire specimen? See Discussion.

Palpable mass in right breast at 6:00. Path stated 'poorly differentiated ductal carcinoma with extensive necrosis and extensive angiolymphatic invasion. Focal high grade comedocarcinoma (1%)'. Another hypoechoic nodule was seen at the 9:00 position. This mass was excised from surrounding tissue. This mass was more like an inflammatory mass; there was no real tumor present there. Path report stated "Breast mass 9:00 excisional biopsy - angiolymphatic invasion by mammary carcinoma throughout the entire specimen."

Is this two primaries because of the two different histology codes: 8500 and 8010?

 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as a single primary using rule M3 (a single tumor is always a single primary). There was one tumor present according to the information provided. The second specimen was not a separate tumor ("There was no real tumor present there"). 2008
20081110

MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a ductal carcinoma diagnosed in August, 2008 following a lobular-ductal primary diagnosed in February 2007 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has two right breast tumors excised in February, 2007. One is lobular and the other ductal - abstracted as single primary per rule M10. Patient presents with new right breast tumor in August, 2008. This is a ductal carcinoma stated to be a recurrence. Would we again stop at M10 (single primary) or continue on to M12 and make this a new primary (difference at third number)?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Stop at rule M10 -- this is the first rule that applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

 2008
20081015

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a subsequent primary be abstracted using rule M8 for a patient diagnosed in January 2000 with adenocarcinoma of the right upper lung if the patient initially sought alternative therapies and presented in September 2007 for a right upper lobe lung mass with extension into the mediastinum, mediastinal lymph node mets and a pericardial effusion? See Discussion.

After more than seven years, the patient in this case decided to proceed with the originally suggested standard therapy. Is this a multiple primary case because the tumors are "diagnosed" more than 3 years apart? Or should we assume this is further progression of the 2000 case because it was originally only treated with alternative therapies? The clinician in this case indicates the patient is being referred for treatment to the right upper lung originally diagnosed in 2000.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Do not abstract a 2007 primary for this case. From the information provided, there is disease progression/extension and lymph node metastasis in 2007; but there are no new lung tumors in 2007. Therefore, the 2007 MP/H rules do not apply.

 2008
20081095 Race, ethnicity/Spanish surname or origin: If birthplace is Brazil or Portugal, patient's last name is on the Spanish Surname list, and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity, what is the correct Spanish Ethnicity code: 0 or 7? See Discussion. See also SINQ 20081075.

Assign code 7 [Spanish surname only] when the last name is on the Spanish Surname list. This includes cases for which the birthplace is Brazil, Portugal or the Philippines and there is no text to further clarify ethnicity.

The instruction to use code 0 [Non-Spanish/Non-Hispanic] in the SEER manual on page 51 (#2) applies when the only information available is the birthplace or a statement of "Portuguese," "Brazilian" or "Filipino."

 2008
20081006 Multiplicity Counter: Is there a time frame for the Multiplicity Counter or is it related to the duration for counting new tumors (i.e. 5 years for breast, etc) to capture the number of "local recurrences"? Record the number of tumors counted as a single primary at the time the case is abstracted. Later, if additional tumors are determined to be the same primary, update this field once. Do not update the multiplicity counter more than once. 2008
20081118 Surgery of Primary Site--Brain and CNS: How is this field to be coded when a patient undergoes stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor? Path specimen consists of four fragments of tissue measuring .7, .6 and .3 cm. Assign code 20 [Local excision (biopsy) of lesion or mass. Specimen sent to pathology from surgical event 20]. 2008
20081107 Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis? If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual. 2008
20081112 MP/H Rules--Breast: Is a 2008 invasive ductal carcinoma counted as a new primary when it follows a 2005 invasive lobular carcinoma diagnosed in the same breast? See Discussion. The patient has invasive lobular breast carcinoma excised in 2005. She returns in 2008 with a new invasive ductal carcinoma tumor same breast. Following MP/H rules, M10 seems to apply, which states this is still a single primary. Does this mean that this invasive ductal carcinoma is ignored and the patient remains in the registry with only a lobular carcinoma primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Rule M10 applies. The 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary.

The abstract for the 2005 diagnosis should be annotated to include the new information.

 2008
20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

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