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: 07/25/2025 22:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20110101 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the primary site coded to C778 or C779 for a diffuse large B cell lymphoma with abdominal lymph node, neck lymph node, and spleen involvement?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Use Rule PH21 to code the primary site to C778 [lymph nodes of multiple regions]. The spleen is not listed under the Primary Site(s) section in the Heme DB for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Per Rule PH21 code the primary site to multiple lymph node regions, NOS (C778) when multiple lymph node regions, as defined by ICD-O-3, are involved and it is not possible to identify the lymph node region where the lymphoma originated. The spleen is a primary site for only a few lymphomas (noted in the Heme DB). Because the spleen filters blood, it is often reactive (splenomegaly) or frankly involved with the lymphoma. That reaction or involvement, however, does not affect the primary site coding. Only the involved nodes are used in coding primary site.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20110040

Reportability--Melanoma: Is a pathology report with a final diagnosis stating only non-reportable terms, followed by a re-excision pathology report that indicates "no residual melanoma" reportable? See Discussion.

Is a case reportable if the final diagnosis on an initial pathology report states a non-reportable term (e.g., evolving melanoma, early/evolving melanoma or melanocytic nevus) and followed by a subsequent re-excision pathology report stating there is "No residual melanoma"? There is no mention in the clinical history on the subsequent pathology report that the diagnosis was thought to be melanoma following the first procedure. The first mention of the reportable term was in the final diagnosis of the subsequent pathology report that stated "no residual melanoma."

No. This case is not reportable based on the information provided. "No residual melanoma" is not diagnostic of a reportable neoplasm.

We recommend that you try to obtain more information from the clinician/pathologist for this case due to the poor documentation. Check for any additional resection performed.

 2011
20110118

Reportability--Colon: Is a polypectomy that is suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma followed by a partial colectomy with no residual neoplasm reportable? See Discussion.

08/28/2009 Cecum biopsy showed an adenomatous polyp with focal areas suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.

SINQ 20071060 states a suspicious biopsy that is disproven by a subsequent surgical procedure is not reportable. That does not seem to apply in this case because the patient had a suspicious finding on a surgical procedure (polypectomy), followed by a second surgical procedure that was negative. Is it possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor and the suspicious diagnosis should be reported?

This case is reportable.

It is possible that the polypectomy removed the entire tumor. Invasive carcinoma in a polyp does not mean that is has invaded the stalk of the polyp. If the stalk is not invaded, all of the cancer may have been removed by a polypectomy.

 2011
20110088

Chemotherapy/Neoadjuvant treatment: Should neoadjuvant chemotherapy be coded for an incidental second primary discovered at the time of surgery? If so, how is the diagnosis date coded? See Discussion.

The patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy for rectal carcinoma. An AP resection revealed an incidental second primary intramucosal carcinoma in adenomatous polyp in the descending colon. Is the chemotherapy coded as therapy for the intramucosal carcinoma of the descending colon?

Record the neoadjuvant therapy only for the first primary and do not record the neoadjuvant therapy for the incidental new primary found on surgery. 

 2011
20110002 Surgery of Primary Site--Penis: How is CO2 laser treatment coded for penile cancer? Assign code 14 [laser] for CO2 laser treatment given for primary penile cancer. The CO2 is the method used to deliver the laser. 2011
20110149

Ambiguous Terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and diagnostic confirmation to be coded when the pathology report's final diagnosis is "plasma cell dyscrasia consistent with plasma cell myeloma" and the physician subsequently states this diagnosis was plasma cell myeloma? See Discussion.

Pathologists often use the diagnosis "plasma cell dyscrasia" followed by an ambiguous term such as "consistent with" or "favors" with a more specific histology such as "plasma cell myeloma." Per initial training for Hematopoietic, ambiguous terminology is not used to code the histology for Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms. Should the histology be coded as plasma cell dyscrasia (which is not found in the Heme DB or Manual) because the pathology report uses ambiguous terminology to describe the plasma cell myeloma?

If the physician subsequently states the diagnosis is "plasma cell myeloma" in a note following the pathology, should the histology be coded as plasma cell myeloma based on that diagnosis as there was no ambiguous terminology used?

How is the diagnostic confirmation coded for this case? Should this be a positive histology diagnosis (diagnostic confirmation code 1) if the pathology diagnosis uses ambiguous terminology only?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

The histology is coded as Plasma cell myeloma [9732/3]. The diagnostic confirmation is coded to 1 [positive histology].

Under the Definitive Diagnostic Methods section in the Heme DB it indicates that a bone marrow aspiration and bone marrow biopsy are procedures used to diagnose this disease process. This patient's diagnosis was based on the pathology (presumably from a bone marrow biopsy).

NOTE: This is a reportable case. Ambiguous terminology is used to accession cases (determine reportability) because it has been used for over 30 years to do so. Any deviation from using ambiguous terminology to determine case reportability would cause the reporting of incidence counts to vary. In this case, there was a reportable, ambiguous terminology diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma on the pathology report; as well as a reportable physician's statement/diagnosis of plasma cell myeloma.

Ambiguous terminology, however, is not used to report a more specific diagnosis for the Heme & Lymphoid neoplasms. For example, if the pathology report final diagnosis was "Myeloproliferative neoplasm, probably Polycythemia Vera" the histology would be coded as myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable [9975/3]. The ambiguous terminology indicates that the genetic testing, immunophenotyping, etc., probably are not complete or are not diagnostic of the more specific disease. Wait to code the histology until there is a definite diagnosis given.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

 2011
20120018 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded if a lumpectomy reveals multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ spanning an area of 0.9-1.2 cm with close margins and a subsequent mastectomy reveals only a single focus of lobular carcinoma in situ measuring 0.2 cm in the UOQ, remote from all surgical margins? See Discussion. Does the general instruction apply in this case that indicates the histology is coded from the most representative tumor specimen resulting in the histology coded to 8500/2 [DCIS]? Or is the histology coded to 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] per Rule H28 because there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma [8500]?

Code the histology to duct and lobular carcinoma in situ [8522/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module Rule M4 because the patient had multiple foci of DCIS and a separate, single focus of LCIS. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Tumors that are lobular and duct are a single primary.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H20 because the patient has multiple foci of DCIS and LCIS. Code the histology as 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.

The DCIS and LCIS are separate tumors. The DCIS was removed by the lumpectomy and the LCIS by the mastectomy. The most representative specimen for the DCIS is the lumpectomy. The most representative specimen for the LCIS is the mastectomy. Both pathology reports must be used in this case to determine the histology.

2012
20120045 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the primary site of a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described on a PET and an abdominal CT scan as a large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries and per the clinician as stage IIE? See Discussion.

PET: large pelvic mass displacing bladder and uterus, inseparable from anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries. Diffuse abnormal uptake within this mass as well as the adjacent structures. No regional hypermetabolic adenopathy is noted and no imaging evidence of distant metastatic disease. The PET also demonstrated diffuse abnormal uptake within the pelvic mass as well as the adjacent structures.

CT abdomen: large pelvic mass invading vagina and inseparable from the anus, right pelvic sidewall, cervix and bilateral ovaries.

MD states: "stage IIE with invasion of vagina."

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Per Rule 18, code the primary site to C775 [pelvic lymph nodes]. Per Rule PH18, code the primary site to the specified lymph node region when the site of lymphoma is described only as a mass. This rule also indicates that the Code pelvic lymph nodes [C775] when the lymph nodes are described as a pelvic mass.

This rule has been effect for SEER for over 20 years. It is based on the fact that a number of lymphomas that originate in nodes are not diagnosed until those nodes become matted or fixed. The presentation is then one of a "mass" in those nodal regions.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2012
20120032

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is the histology coded for an invasive melanoma stated to have a "superficial spreading growth pattern"? See Discussion.

Some facilities in our reporting region submit pathology reports that document invasive melanoma cases with a subtype stated to be a "growth pattern." The MP/H rules state that we are not to use the term "pattern" to code the histology of invasive tumors. However, applying this rule means the more specific histology will not be recorded for any of these cases. Can the term "growth pattern" be a more specific histologic type for invasive melanomas when no other information is available?

Code the histology as superficial spreading melanoma [8743/3]. For cases diagnosed 2007-2014, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a melanoma primary, use the Melanoma Histology rules to determine the histology code because there are site specific rules for cutaneous melanomas.

Start at Rule H1. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Code the most specific histologic term when the diagnosis is melanoma, NOS [8720] with a single specific type, superficial spreading in this case. The subtype of this invasive melanoma is "superficial spreading."

A change will be made to Rule 9 in next update to indicate "growth pattern" can be used to describe an invasive histology.

 2012
20120010 Multiple primaries/Behavior--Ovary: What is the diagnosis date and histology for the primary(ies) abstracted for a patient with a mucinous cystic borderline tumor of the ovary in 2003 and a metastatic ovarian adenocarcinoma in 2011? See Discussion.

The 2011 pathology report: Spine at L3 biopsy: metastatic adenocarcinoma. Per addendum: Prior total abdominal hysterectomy specimen from 2003 was reviewed and showed an ovarian mucinous cystic tumor of borderline malignancy which has a similar morphology to the invasive adenocarcinoma seen on current specimen.

Abdominal tissue and omental biopsy: invasive and non-invasive glandular implants compatible with origin from ovarian mucinous borderline tumor.

The final diagnosis per radiation oncologist was, "recurrent ovarian cancer."

This is a single primary. The diagnosis date is coded to 2003 and the histology is mucinous cystadenocarcinoma [8470/3]. The bone, abdominal tissue and omentum are metastatic sites. The MP/H Rules do not apply to metastases.

This is a case where an invasive or microinvasive element was missed in the original pathology. Because the entire tumor was not sectioned and placed on slides, the pathologist used their expertise when sectioning and selecting tissue to be examined. It is not a matter of poor judgment, just a fact that it is impossible to review the tissue from the entire tumor. The behavior must be changed to malignant [/3].

2012