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: 02/21/2026 06:26 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091101 CS Reg LN Pos/Exam--Melanoma: How should these fields be coded for a case that is an unknown primary site melanoma with liver involvement and a positive axillary lymph node?

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 regional lymph nodes positive 01 [one positive lymph node] and regional lymph nodes examined 01 [one lymph node examined] (assuming the positive node was the only node examined).

If the only lymph node involvement is the positive axillary lymph node, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a regional lymph node. When only one chain of lymph nodes is involved with metastatic melanoma, the metastatic cells had to come from skin with direct drainage to those lymph nodes.

 2009
20091117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion.

How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. 2009
20091034 CS Extension--Ovary: How are the following terms coded when they are described in the medical record without any other qualifying information? Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, miliary, and studding.

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.Seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting and studding are synonymous with implants. When the size of implants is not stated, but operative report and scans state "seeding," "talcum powder appearance," "salting," and "studding" the CS extension code choice will depend on the location of the seeding, talcum powder appearance, salting, or studding.

The word "miliary" is not documented as a synonym for implants.

The term miliary does not affect the CS extension code choice according to the current CS instructions.

 2009
20091076 Surgery of Primary Site/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Breast: How should these fields be coded when a sentinel lymph node dissection removes one-to-three axillary lymph nodes and a total/simple mastectomy is done? Assign code 41 [Total (simple) mastectomy, NOS WITHOUT removal of uninvolved contralateral breast] for Surgery of Primary Site. Assign code 2 [Sentinel lymph node biopsy] for Scope of Regional Lymph Node surgery. Code 41 applies to a total/simple mastectomy with any number of sentinel lymph nodes removed -- as long as all of the nodes removed are designated as sentinel nodes. 2009
20091085 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded for a breast primary with a final diagnosis of "infiltrating duct carcinoma with apocrine features"? See Discussion. I & R has conflicting answers: #25719 (dated 3/17/2008) says per rule H12 this is 8401/3 but #23347 (dated 8/12/07) says per rule H16, this is 8523/3.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign histology code 8401/3 [apocrine adenocarcinoma] according to rule H12. Apocrine is a type of duct carcinoma, see table 1. Code 8401 should be listed in Rule H12. Apocrine should be removed from table 3.

These corrections will appear in the revised version of the rules.

 2009
20091003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Peritoneal primary: Can the cell types from the primary site and a metastatic site be combined to code histology? See Discussion. Patient has vaginal mass biopsy diagnosed as 'papillary carcinoma with psammoma bodies.' Two weeks later the patient has laparoscopy with multiple peritoneal biopsies, diagnosed as 'well differentiated serous adenocarcinoma'. Patient stated to have peritoneal primary with mets to vagina and was treated with chemotherapy. Do we code the histology to 8441/31 from the primary site biopsies, or can we use 8460/3, combining the cell types from the primary and metastatic sites? Please see SINQ 20041062 for a similar question before the 2007 MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma, NOS].

Code the histology from the primary site when available. Do not combine histologies from primary and metastatic sites.

In this primary peritoneal case, the diagnosis from the peritoneal biopsies was serous adenocarcinoma.

 2009
20091068 Primary site--Bladder: What is the appropriate subsite for "adjacent to the bladder neck"? Assign code C679 [Bladder, NOS]. It is not possible to determine the location of the tumor from the description. A tumor that is "adjacent to bladder neck" could be located in the trigone or on the bladder wall (anterior, posterior or lateral). 2009
20091105

Multiple Primaries--Hematopoietic: How many primaries and which histologies should be reported for a case presenting with a 2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL, 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS and a 2008 diagnosis of AML? See Discussion.

2005 diagnosis of CLL/SLL (9670) with lymph node involvement, treated with FCR. 2006 clinical diagnosis of MDS secondary to chemo (9987) with CLL/SLL in remission. 2008 biopsy reveals AML (9861). Per Seer Hematopoietic Table, 9987 & 9861 are a single primary. In 6/2008 patient receives bone marrow transplant. 2009 status post BMT, BM biopsy reveals RAEB-1 (9983). Is this still the same disease process or a new primary (since status post BMT)?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Two primaries should be abstracted. Using the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, compare 9670 (SLL) in 2005 and 9987 (MDS secondary to chemo) in 2006. This is two primaries.

MDS can transform to AML. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9861 (AML) are a single primary. The AML would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9861/AML are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

RAEB is a form of MDS. On the Definitions of Single and Subsequent Primaries for Hematologic Malignancies table, 9987 (MDS) and 9983 (RAEB) are a single primary. The RAEB would be documented in follow-up. (While 9670/SLL and 9983/RAEB are two different primaries, the SLL has already been reported.)

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
20091130

MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: What is the correct histology code and MP/H rule used for 1) infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and 2) infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma? See Discussion.

There is confusion as to which rule applies. Should the histologies be coded to 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] and 8211/3 [tubular adenocarcinoma] respectively per rule H12? Rule H12 states to code the most specific histologic term; "type" and "with features of" are used in the pathologic diagnosis and are both terms that can be used to code the specific histology. Or would the histology be coded 8523 for both examples per rule H17 because neither histologic codes 8480/3 or 8211/3 are included as examples of duct carcinomas, nor are they included in Table 2?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8523 [infiltrating duct mixed with other types of carcinoma] for

1. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma, mucinous type and

2. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with features of tubular carcinoma

The infiltrating ductal types in Rule H12 are listed (8022, 8035, 8501-8508) and do not include mucinous or tubular. We cannot use this rule. The first rule that applies to these single tumors is H17, code to 8523. If you look up 8523 in the numerical morphology section of ICD-O-3, you will see similar examples included in the definition of this code.

2009
20091025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

 2009