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 00:15 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091013

Reportability--Skin: Is a "basal cell carcinoma of the skin of the lip with focal skin appendage differentiation" reportable?

The histology code for basal cell carcinoma with skin appendage differentiation is 8098/3. Basal cell carcinomas (8090-8110) are not reportable to SEER. Skin appendage tumors are not reportable to SEER unless stated to be carcinoma or stated to be malignant.

According to our pathologist consultant, basal cell carcinoma with focal skin appendage differentiation is basal cell carcinoma which exhibits adnexal (appendage) features, but it is still basal cell carcinoma.

The case example above is not reportable to SEER.

 2009
20091026 CS Extension--Extramedullary Plasmacytoma: Under what circumstance would CS extension code 80 be used in a case of extramedullary plasmacytoma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 80 [Systemic disease] for extramedullary plasmacytoma involving more than one site. Use code 80 when extramedullary plasmacytoma is NOT single, solitary, unifocal, isolated, mono-ostotic or localized. Code 80 can also be used when the bone marrow is involved but the plasma cells are <10%.

Do not apply EOD instructions to CS.

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.

 2009
20091112 Grade-Breast: How is this field coded for a breast tumor described as "intermediate nuclear grade"? See Discussion.

Guidelines for selecting grade for breast primaries prioritize nuclear grade right after B&R grade. The conversion table displays only numeric values for nuclear grade. How is grade coded for tumors in which nuclear grade is described by terminology? Does it make a difference if the tumor is invasive or in situ?

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma, intermediate nuclear grade.

Example 2: Ductal carcinoma, high nuclear grade.

Example 3: Ductal carcinoma, moderate nuclear grade.

Example 4: DCIS, intermediate nuclear grade.

Use the table on page C-607 of the 2007 SEER manual. The terms "low," "intermediate," and "high" appear in the column labeled "BR Grade." Use this column to determine the appropriate grade code when grade is described using these terms. If the grade of an in situ tumor is described using these terms, use the table to determine the appropriate code for the grade field. 2009
20091054

First course treatment--Liver: Is planned therapy second course therapy if it is administered after documented progression of disease? See Discussion.

A patient with hepatocellular carcinoma of the liver is waiting for a planned liver transplant. During the waiting period, a CT showed an increase in the liver nodule. The physician performed a bridging chemoembolization. Later on, the patient received a liver transplant. Is the liver transplant still first course treatment? Is the chemoembolization part of first course therapy? Per the SEER manual, first course therapy ends when the treatment plan is completed.

In this case, neither the chemoembolization nor the liver transplant is part of the first course of therapy. The documented treatment plan was changed after disease progression. Chemoembolization was not part of the original treatment plan. First course therapy ends at this point.

 2009
20091129 Primary Site--Breast: What subsite is to be coded for a case of invasive Paget disease of the nipple with an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the lower inner quadrant? Code C50.9 [Breast, NOS]. Code the last digit of the primary site to '9' for single primaries when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined. Nipple [C50.0] and LIQ [C50.3] fit this rule. This is a single primary per MP/H Breast Rule M9. 2009
20091039 CS Tumor Size--Lung:. Does code 997 (diffuse, entire lobe) for lung and main stem bronchus take precedence over a stated tumor size? See Discussion. Per SPCSM 2007 'Coding Instructions for CS Staging Data Items-CS Tumor Size' item 5c states that code 998 (diffuse, entire lung) for lung and main stem bronchus takes precedence over any mention of size. Does this apply to code 997 as well?

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 the stated tumor size rather than 997. Code 997 does not take precedence over tumor size at this time. According to CoC, the instructions in the CS Manual, Part I-27, rule 5c are to alert the user to special circumstances. Code 997 is not included because it is not diffuse for all of the sites listed. The site-specific rules and codes in the schema always take precedence. Further instructions and clarifications will be added to the lung schema, CS Manual Part II-317 in the next version of CS.

 2009
20091019 MP/H Rules/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: Can a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be made if a bone marrow biopsy is negative? See Discussion. Patient with large mass nasal cavity. Biopsy shows plasmacytoma. Fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is consistent with multiple myeloma. Skeletal survey shows multiple lytic lesions. Bone marrow biopsy is negative for myeloma. In light of negative bone marrow biopsy can this case be coded as multiple myeloma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code this case as multiple myeloma. The fine needle aspiration of the acetabulum is a biopsy of bone marrow. According to our pathologist consultant, the positive bone marrow biopsy (acetabulum) and the multiple lytic bone lesions confirm multiple myeloma. The negative bone marrow biopsy is likely due to an insufficient sample.

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.

 2009
20091091 Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: How should these fields be coded for a malignant lymphoma with spleen involvement, inguinal and iliac adenopathy, T12 lesion with bony destruction, and a paraspinal mass in lower lumbar region with extension into iliac fossa involving left psoas muscle and causing bony destruction?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010, 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 the primary site C496 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of trunk]. When lymphoma is present in an extranodal organ/site and in that organ/site's regional lymph nodes, code the extranodal organ/site as the primary site. In this case, there is a soft tissue paraspinal mass at T12 extending into iliac fossa, left psoas muscle and bone. Lymph nodes are also involved. Assign CS extension code 21 [Direct extension to adjacent organs or tissues].

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.

 2009
20091009 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. 2009
20091131 Multiplicity Counter/Type of Multiple Tumors--Breast: How are these fields coded when a patient underwent a lumpectomy demonstrating two measured foci of invasive ductal carcinoma (1.5 cm and 3 mm) and "focally seen" in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) followed by a re-excision that is positive for 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma? See Discussion.

Lumpectomy path shows two foci of invasive ductal carcinoma, 1.5 cm & 3 mm sizes, and CAP summary lists "DCIS: focally seen", no further description. The re-excision pathology specimen finds a 1.5 mm focus of residual invasive carcinoma, very close to the new inferior margin (so registrar assumed this was probably not part of the previously excised mass), and no mention of any more in situ.

Can we assume the DCIS was associated with/part of the invasive tumors because it was not measured or described separately? If we say there are 3 tumors (for the measured invasive foci), should Type of Multiple Tumors be coded 30 [In situ and invasive] or 40 [Multiple invasive]?

Code 03 [3 tumors] in the multiplicity counter. Do not count the "focally seen" DCIS because it was not measured.

Code 30 [In situ and invasive] in Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary. The single primary reported for this case is a combination of in situ and invasive tumors.

2009