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: 11/02/2025 03:45 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010155

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Melanoma: Would a shave biopsy diagnosis of "highly suggestive of early melanoma", followed by a re-excision diagnosis of "no residual disease", be SEER reportable if the clinician referred to the case clinically as a melanoma? If so, what would the Diagnostic Confirmation be? See discussion.

Pathology report from a shave biopsy states: "...markedly atypical junctional melanocytic proliferation. Changes highly suggestive of early melanoma arising adjacent to superficial congenital nevus." The re-excision pathology report states "biopsy proven melanoma" in the "Clinical History" section of the report (which is a reference to the original shave biopsy). The re-excision final pathology diagnosis states "no evidence of melanoma." The physician states that he thinks this is a melanoma. Should it be reported? Should Diagnostic Confirmation be coded to 1 or 8?

The case is reportable because the physician documented a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 8 [Clinical diagnosis only (other than 5, 6 or 7)].

 2001
20010005 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals "well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.

For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 2001
20010075 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus"? See discussion. Could 8480/3 [mucinous adenocarcinoma] be used to code histology?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. "Focus" does not indicate the majority of tumor per rule C2 on page 2 of the Coding Complex Morph Dx's. The tumor must be at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology.

We code to the more specific term if there are no qualifying or modifying terms such as: focally, focus, predominantly. If any qualifying words are used, the C1 rule applies, which is to code to the majority of tumor.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2001
20010095 EOD-Extension--Lung: Are "aortico-pulmonary window", "paratracheal space", and "subcarina" coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion. Would a lung tumor that extends into the AP window be synonymous with extension into the mediastinum? If so, would this also apply to extension to subcarina, paratracheal space, and other such terms corresponding to areas listed in the mediastinal lymph node field under code 2?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Extension into the aortico-pulmonary window, would be coded in the EOD-Extension field as 70 [mediastinal extension]. If the tumor extends into the paratracheal space, subcarina, or other areas listed under the code 2 in lymph nodes, code the EOD-Extension field to 70 to capture this type of involvement.

 2001
20010157 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology of "invasive ductal carcinoma and in situ ductal carcinoma, cribriform type"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [ductal carcinoma] unless the combination is ductal and lobular.

For tumors diagnosed 2007 or later, refer to the MP/H rules. If there are still questions about how this type of tumor should be coded, submit a new question to SINQ and include the difficulties you are encountering in applying the MP/H rules.

 2001
20010166

Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?

Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.

For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.

For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.

 2001
20021070 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Breast: How would you interpret the phrase "axillary lymph node tissue, not clearly a lymph node" or the phrase "satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node or chest wall tissue"? See discussion. A lumpectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and removal of nodule in anterior axillary line revealed negative lymph nodes. The nodule specimen was labeled "axillary lymph tissue, not clearly a lymph node". The microscopic description for that specimen stated "Fibroadipose tissue. A fragment of a lymph node is incidentally sampled in block 4 and it is free of tumor". The final path dx stated "Satellite nodule of invasive tumor, left axillary lymph node, or chest wall tissue. Comment: If the tissue is considered chest wall this would be a stage IIIB. If it is considered an intramammary satellite nodule, this is a stage I". The clinician repeated what the comment said, and added "If lymph node mets, this is a stage II." Code the invasive tumor in the axillary area as a regional lymph node metastasis. According to the AJCC, cancerous nodules in the axillary fat adjacent to the breast, without histologic evidence of residual lymph node tissue, are classified as regional lymph node metastases. 2002
20021147

Other Cancer Directed Therapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "aspirin" treatment for primary polycythemia? See discussion.

Aspirin is listed as treatment for "thrombocythemia" in the Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases but not for "primary polycythemia."

Do not code aspirin as treatment for primary polycythemia (polycythemia vera).

 2002
20021015 Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: How should the expressions "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" and "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" be interpreted for reportability? Would the interpretation be different depending on the primary site?

For reportability, interpret "suspicious for but not diagnostic of" as NOT diagnostic of cancer.

The phrase "suspicious for the possibility of early invasive adenocarcinoma" may indicate that the case is in situ. If no further information is available, this is not reportable.

The site of the cancer diagnosis does not change the interpretation.

 2002
20021090 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: How should the Primary Site field be coded when no resection is done and it is uncertain whether the primary site is in the ovary or the peritoneum? See discussion. CT: ascites, omental cake and peritoneal studding. H&P impression: probable ovarian or peritoneal primary. Repeat CT: no enlarged adnexal mass seen to suggest ca of ovary, but possibility couldn't be ruled out. Omental bx: Metastatic ca. Comment: "IHC stains have been performed and are not typical of ovarian ca, although do not exclude an ovarian primary." After the bx, there were two clinical diagnoses written a month apart with no evidence of further work-up between those dates. The first diagnosis was "ovarian ca". The second was "Peritoneal carcinomatosis 2 month ago; Primary is unknown, possibly ovarian."

Use the best information available to identify the primary site. In this case, it is the physician's clinical assessment. Code the Primary Site to C56.9 [Ovary] for this example because the ovary is indicated to be the primary site according to the physicians involved.

When there is no surgical procedure involving the removal of the ovaries, code the Primary Site based on the clinical assessment of the disease location. If the disease is only noted to be in the peritoneum, code site to peritoneum, NOS. If the disease is seen clinically in both the ovary and the peritoneum, code site to ovary.

 2002