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: 03/01/2026 16:00 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031085 Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007): What are the correct site and histology codes for "tubal serous adenocarcinoma" identified in a fallopian tube? See Description. The pathology report of a laparoscopic left salpingo-oophorectomy states: 1.5 cm intraluminal mass left fallopian tube: micro: tubal serous adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated, infiltrates the muscular wall of the fallopian tube; serosa does not appear to be penetrated. The left ovary is negative for malignancy.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology as 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma].

The primary site for this case is fallopian tube, not the suggested site code of ovary.

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.

 2003
20031078 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: Are "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" or "lymphoid areas" coded as lymph node involvement, similar to the way nodules in the pericolic fat are coded? See Description. For an adenocarcinoma in the colon, under the "lymph node" section of the final path diagnosis it states "multiple submucosal lymphoid collections infiltrated with tumor" in addition to "one of two involved lymph nodes." The micro description states "There are multiple small lymphoid areas with tumor. A definite node excised from the mesentery shows...replacement of stroma and an additional very small node shows no tumor."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: No, do not code tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas as lymph node involvement.

However, code lymph node involvement for this case as 3 [mesenteric, NOS] because a mesenteric node is involved.

Regarding tumor infiltration of lymphoid collections or lymphoid areas from our pathologist consultant: Unless the anatomy of lymph node is evident (sinuses, trabeculae, primary and secondary follicles) these aren't lymph nodes and should not be coded as such. Unless there is evidence to the contrary in the path report, I would suggest that this be considered intramural spread, not lymph node spread.

 2003
20031208 EOD-Extension--Corpus uteri: How should EOD extension be coded when the pathology report shows adenocarcinoma arising in the endometrium with the statement "no invasive carcinoma identified?" For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code endometrial cancer with no invasion to EOD extension code 11 [Confined to endometrium (stroma)]. "No invasion" most likely means no invasion of the myometrium. 2003
20031198 Surgery of Primary Site/Date Therapy Initiated--Head & Neck: Would a biopsy, NOS, that removed the majority of the tumor be used to code these fields? See Description. Patient underwent biopsy, NOS, of a carcinoma of the tongue. Subsequent glossectomy revealed microscopic focus of residual squamous cell carcinoma. If the biopsy NOS removed all macroscopic disease, code the date of the biopsy NOS as the date therapy initiated. If macroscopic disease remained following the biopsy NOS, code the glossectomy date as the date therapy initiated. 2003
20031141 Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. 2003
20031146 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." 2003
20031031

Reportability/Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: What histology code is used for a patient diagnosed with "myelodysplasia" prior to 2001, if a bone marrow biopsy in 2002 is consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excess blasts and the final impression is "myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia?"

Patient was admitted in July 15, 2002. Per the H&P, patient was diagnosed 5 years ago with myelodysplasia. Patient had bone marrow biopsy about 5 years ago and then again on 6-10-02. Patient has become transfusion dependent since mid-March. Bone marrow on 6-10-02 was consistent with myelodysplastic syndrome with refractory anemia with bilineage dysplasia with excessive blasts. Impression: Myelodysplastic syndrome slowly evolving toward acute leukemia. Plan: start chemo. 7-16-02 bone marrow biopsy showed acute myeloid leukemia.

Can we assume that the myelodysplasia diagnosed 5 years ago was refractory anemia and therefore, patient's first reportable diagnosis would be the AML? Or is the 6-10-02 bone marrow biopsy showing refractory anemia to be the first reportable diagnosis because the term "myelodysplasia" is non-specific?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Based on the information provided, the diagnosis date is June 2002. The diagnosis is 9895/3, acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia (AML with prior myelodysplastic syndrome). According to the SEER table of hematopoietic diseases, refractory anemia and myelodysplastic syndrome followed by AML is one primary.

Prior to 2001, a diagnosis of myelodysplasia was not 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
20031052

Diagnostic Confirmation--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a multiple myeloma diagnosed by an FNA of the lumbar spine (or any other non-bone marrow location) a diagnostic confirmation 1 or 2? See Description.

Does the rule on page 111 of the SEER Program Coding Manual, 3rd Edition, for code 1 apply to myelomas (in the same way it applies to leukemias)?

Assign code 1 [Positive histology] for aspiration of bone marrow. This rule is not limited to leukemias.

 2003
20031048 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported. 2003
20031194

Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.

We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?

Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?

 Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. 2003