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: 09/12/2025 00:38 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031063 Date of Diagnosis: When the clinical information on a scan indicates a history of cancer, how do you code the month and/or year of diagnosis given these terms: "early in year," "late in year," "2-3 months ago," "7 months ago," "new diagnosis." See Description.

Case 1. Diagnosed with CLL in late 1996. Assumptions: Code the term "late" in the year to December. Date of diagnosis would be coded to December 1996.

Case 2. Diagnosed with CLL in early 1997. Assumptions: Code the term "early" in the year to January. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 1997.

Case 3. Admitted July 2000. Per H & P, patient was diagnosed with prostate cancer 2-3 years ago. Assumptions: Select the higher number in the range (in this case 3 years) and subtract 3 years from date of admit to calculate year of diagnosis. Code diagnosis month to the month patient was admitted. Diagnosis date would be coded July 1997.

Case 4. Admitted in October 2001. H&P states that colon cancer was diagnosed 7 months ago. Assumptions: Subtract 7 months from date of admit. Code date of diagnosis to March 2001.

Case 5. Admitted in December 2001. Per H&P, patient has CLL, presumably a new diagnosis. Assumptions: Assume the H&P statement of "new" to be equivalent to "recent" and code date of diagnosis to date patient was admitted. In this case, date of diagnosis would be coded to December 2001.

Case 6. Admitted for radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in March 2001. H&P states that his PSA was 5 in November 2000 and in January 2001, PSA was 5.3. Biopsies showed adenocarcinoma. Assumptions: Assume the biopsy was done the same month as the January 2001 increased PSA. Date of diagnosis would be coded to January 2001.

Case 7. Outpatient bone scan done December 2001. Clinical history on the scan stated patient has history of prostate cancer. The physician was queried about date of diagnosis. Per the physician response, patient was diagnosed in 2001. Assumptions: Assume the bone scan was part of the initial work-up for prostate cancer and estimate the date of diagnosis to December 2001.

SEER agrees that these are reasonable assumptions based on the information provided.

Estimate the month and year of diagnosis using the available information. If the information is not sufficient to make an estimation on the month, code the month of diagnosis as "99." Avoid coding "unknown" for the year of diagnosis.

 2003
20031187

Histology--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent the histology "monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]"? See Description.

A 14 year old with a cadaver kidney transplant in 1994 for membranous glomerulonephritis presented in 6/26/03 with a right cervical LN with biopsy showing "lymph node involved by monomorphic post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Staging was done including a bone marrow which was negative, CSF negative. The oncologist on the case reduced the immunosuppression drugs with the final outcome being no sign of the lymphoma.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code 9680/36 [Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. This post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. According to the World Health Organization, there are two types of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. "Regular" post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder is not a neoplasm and is therefore not reportable to a cancer registry. The second type (sometimes called Hodgkin-like PTLD) is classified as a B-cell lymphoma, which means that it IS reportable.

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.

 2003
20031147 Reason No Cancer-Directed Surgery--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is this field always coded to 1 [not performed, not part of first course] for leukemias & other hematopoietic diseases? For cases diagnosed 2003 and later: For sites where "Surgery of the primary site" is coded 00 or 98 (hematopoietic included), Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site should be coded as 1 [Surgery of the primary site not performed because it was not part of the planned first course of treatment]. On rare occasions, there may be surgery to the primary site for a hematopoietic disease, such as an excisional biopsy of a myeloid sarcoma. Refer to the "Abstracting and Coding Guide for the Hematopoietic Diseases" for cell-type-specific treatment information. 2003
20031200 Reportability/Terminology, NOS--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is "smoldering" multiple myeloma reportable to SEER?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Yes, "smoldering" multiple myeloma is reportable to SEER as multiple myeloma [9732/3].

According to our pathologist consultant, "smoldering" multiple myeloma would certainly refer to a diagnosed process. Smoldering means the process is progressing, but perhaps slowly, or even at a slower pace than might be expected.

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.

 2003
20031151 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can size be coded from a needle bx that removes all of the invasive tumor and just leaves a "focus of in situ"? See Description. For example: needle bx diagnosis is "tiny focus of tissue highly suspicious for tubular ca." The lumpectomy path states "single focus of low grade DCIS, no residual ductal ca." Can size be coded 001? Code tumor size to 001 [Microscopic focus or foci only] for the invasive component. Code the tumor size 990 for cases diagnosed in 2004 and forward. Disregard the microscopic tumor found at further resection. 2003
20031181

EOD-Extension--Kaposi Sarcoma: Is a "markedly enlarged spleen" involvement for cases of Kaposi Sarcoma?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No. Splenomegaly is not synonymous with "extension to" or "involvement of" the spleen in Kaposi's sarcoma. Look for a definite statement of Kaposi's lesion(s) involving the spleen.

 2003
20031030 Primary Site--Head & Neck: What is the primary site for a tumor location described as being in the "gingiva between teeth #s 18 and 19?

Code the primary site as C03.1, lower gum.

According to the system used by the American Dental Association, tooth #18 and tooth #19 are lower. Teeth #1-16 are upper. Teeth #17-32 are lower.

 2003
20031145 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: Is this field coded 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: interior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall] or 30 [Localized, NOS] for tonsillar primary when there is no mention of involvement of surrounding structures? See Description. Site is stated to be "left tonsil" and was coded to site C099. "The lesion is admixed in tonsillar tissue." No surrounding structures are stated to be involved. Is it logical to assume that since code C099 includes the palantine tonsils and the palatine tonsils are on the lateral wall and since no other areas are stated to be involved that extension code 10 [confined to one lateral wall] would be more appropriate than code 30 [localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code EOD-extension for the case example to 10 [Invasive tumor confined to one of the following subsites: anterior wall, one lateral wall, posterior wall]. The tonsil lies in a pocket on the wall (tonsillar fossa), so you know it is confined to the wall. 2003
20031101 Primary Site/Behavior Code/EOD-Extension: How would these fields be coded for "squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving papilloma -- locally aggressive but not technically invasive" found in the sphenoid sinus, soft tissue of the skull base and brain? See Description.

The managing physician has staged this pathologically as T4 N0 M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the ethmoid sinuses. The final pathology report says " Sinus, sphenoid, resection: papillary neoplasm most consistent with inverted papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ, 7 cm in greatest extent, focus of probable superficial invasion (see comment).

Soft tissue, skull base, excision: involved by papillary neoplasm with squamous cell carcinoma in situ (see comment). Brain, extradural, intercranial biopsy: involved by papilloma with squamous cell carcinoma in situ. COMMENT:

This is a predominantly exophytic neoplasm with infolding of the tumor epithelium and in situ extension into submucosal glands. There are only focal areas suspicious for invasive squamous cell carcinoma, with probable invasion (<2mm) in one section....The histologic features are most consistent with an inverted papilloma with carcinoma in situ." When asked to comfirm if the diagnosis were in situ or superficially invasive, the pathologist responded "Squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving a papilloma. Locally aggressive but not technically invasive."

Code site to C31.3 [sphenoid sinus]. Code the site based on the final pathology report diagnosis. In the case example, the site attributed to the managing physician appears to be an error.

Code behavior to 3 [malignant, primary site]. The SEER list of terms meaning involvement may be used to help determine behavior. The terms used by the pathologist are "probable" superficial invasion and "suspicious" for invasive squamous cell carcinoma with "probable" invasion. Interpret as invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code extension to 70 [Brain] because this tumor involves the brain.

 2003
20031171 Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.

The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.

 2003