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: 12/18/2025 17:17 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021061 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Mycosis Fungoides/Cutaneous T cell Lymphoma: Physicians often use the terms cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and mycosis fungoides interchangeably and yet the SEER Single versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table indicates that these 2 diagnoses represent separate primaries. Do these cases represent one primary? If so, what histologic type should they be coded to?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The patient does not have two different malignancies. Code the Histology field to 9700/3 [mycosis fungoides], the specific type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Mycosis fungoides is one of several types of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Physicians often refer to mycosis fungoides by the "umbrella term" cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

The table indicates that the broad category of "T/NK-cell NHL" (which includes CTCL) and mycosis fungoides are presumably separate primaries because several entities are included in that broad category. In the specific case cited above, one entity (CTCL) within the broad category (T/NK-cell NHL) and mycosis fungoides are not separate primaries.

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.

 2002
20020060 Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion. Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].

 2002
20021153 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: Is "histological grade" another way of saying "tubule formation" which would result in the following case having a Bloom-Richardson (BR) score of 7 which would be coded to grade 2? See discussion. Final path diagnosis stated: Invasive ductal ca, histological grade 3/3, nuclear grade 2/3, mitotic index-moderate. Yes. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Grade 2] for this case. This case has a BR score of 7 which converts to a grade of 2. This pathologist seems to be describing the three parts of the BR system: tubule formation, mitotic activity and nuclear grade. 2002
20021117 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: Is the prostatic urethra a new primary for a case with a history of recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer that was subsequently diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma in situ of the prostatic urethra and had a subsequent clinical diagnosis of "refractory bladder carcinoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If the histology of the bladder primary is "transitional cell carcinoma" or "papillary transitional cell carcinoma," do not code the prostatic urethra as a new primary. This is probably a case of intraluminal (mucosal) spread of the original tumor, rather than separate primaries. The clinical diagnosis supports this view.

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.

 2002
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
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002
20021092 Histology/Primary Site--CLL/SLL: How should these fields be coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma" [CLL/SLL] diagnosed on a lymph node biopsy that is referred to by the clinician as CLL? See discussion. Does the clinician's reference to this disease as CLL change the SEER rule to code to SLL if the disease arises in a lymph node or solid tissue?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9670/3 [Malignant lymphoma, small lymphocytic, NOS] and the Primary Site field to C77._ [lymph nodes] when CLL/SLL is diagnosed in lymph node or solid tissue, even if the clinician refers to CLL. When CLL/SLL is diagnosed in the blood, code as leukemia.

Refer to clarification #6 on the ICD-O-3 Errata and Clarifications. "...if disease is diagnosed only in the blood or bone marrow, code the primary site to C42.1, bone marrow and assign the leukemia morphology code. If the diagnosis is made on any other tissue (typically lymph nodes, lymphatic structures, breast, and stomach), code to the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology. If the diagnosis is made on both blood or bone marrow and a tissue biopsy, code the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology."

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.

 2002
20021136 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007): How should we code these fields for "atypical fibroxanthoma" of the left cheek diagnosed in October 1999 that is followed by a June 2000 punch biopsy with a microscopic description in the pathology report of "superficial form of malignant fibrous histiocytoma"? See discussion. Should the diagnosis date for the malignant fibrous histiocytoma be October 1999 because it is called "residual/recurrent atypical fibroxanthoma" in the June 2000 final diagnosis of pathology report? In the microscopic description it is called a "malignant fibrous histiocytoma." Per an August 2000 outpatient note, "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8830/3 [Malignant fibrous histiocytoma]. Code the Date of Diagnosis to October 1999 based on the clinician's statement of "The patient probably has malignant fibrous histiocytoma. His course has been more aggressive than that seen with an atypical fibroxanthoma." Assume that this statement means that the physician re-evaluated the clinical course and decided that the original tumor must have been malignant.

If the original slides are reviewed and the diagnosis is changed to a malignancy or if the clinician states that the first occurrence was obviously malignant, backdate the date of diagnosis to the first occurrence.

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.

 2002
20020049 EOD-Extension--Breast: Should clinically mentioned "thickening" of the breast be ignored if the pathology report does not mention thickening or skin involvement? See discussion. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Can clinical "thickening" of the breast be coded to 20-28 extension code when there is no mention of the thickening or skin involvement in the pathology report? How do we code cases when pathology reports don't support the clinical finding of skin involvement. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Do not use code 20-28 when there is no preoperative treatment and the pathology report does not confirm skin invasion. The clinical diagnosis of skin involvement was not supported by the pathology report. 2002
20021052

EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Should these terms be ignored when coding extension to 10 or 30, or do they indicate involvement for non-surgically treated pancreas primaries?

1) Stricture of the common bile duct

2) Common bile duct is narrowed

3) Common bile duct is obstructed

4) Common bile duct dilation

5) Malignant stricture of the common bile duct

6) Ampullary or common bile duct stricture with a negative biopsy or brush.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Ignore these terms when coding extension to 10 or 30. These terms do not verify involvement by pancreatic cancer of the organs mentioned. Other non-malignant circumstances could cause these conditions.

 2002