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: 11/28/2024 17:34 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041033

Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists.

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.

 2004
20041078

Ambiguous Terminology: Is the expression "has the markings of a malignancy" a clinically reportable term? See Discussion.

12/02 Baseline mammogram: spiculated mass with associated marked retraction located in UOQ lt breast. This has the markings of malignancy. Several microcalcifications in outer aspect of rt breast. BI-RADS 5 higly suggestive of malignancy.

Do not accession cases using only the term "has the markings of malignancy." This term is not on the list of ambiguous terms that are reportable. If the term does not appear on either the reportable or not reportable list, the term is not diagnostic of cancer. Do not accession the case.

Please see SINQ 20010094 in reference to BI-RADS terminology.

 2004
20041053 CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: Can we interpret the in situ component as "minimal" when the pathology report states "1.1 cm infiltrating duct carcinoma and no extensive intraductal component"?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Yes. Based on the information provided above, the in situ component is "mininmal" for the purpose of coding Breast CS Site Specific Factor 6. The phrase "no extensive intraductal component" suggests that there is some intraductal carcinoma present.

 2004
20041077 CS Site Specific Factor 1--Colon: If the registrar did not support the CEA code recorded with the appropriate text documentation, should the central registry accept the registrars coding or change the value to 999?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Accept your registrars' codes at your discretion. It is encouraged, but not required, to enter text for CS data elements. These cases do not automatically default to code 999.

 2004
20041050 Surgery of Primary Site--Rectum: How do you code a procedure described as a "transanal resection, debulking of a large rectal mass"? See Discussion. Patient is not a surgical candidate due to "other medical conditions". Colonoscopy done for anemia and rectal bleeding. At the colonoscopy a "Transanal Resection Debulking of large rectal mass" is performed. Two specimens are sent to the lab. The first is labeled "rectal mass" and is a 2.0 cm diameter spherical fragment of tissue. The second is labeled "transanal debulking rectal mass" and is described as multiple, irregular shaped fragments of tan, rubbery tissue measuring 5.0 x 5.0 x 3.0 cm. Final path diagnosis: Debulking of rectal mass: Adenocarcinoma greater than 2 cm in size, resection margins positive for tumor. For cases diagnosed 1998-2002, code Surgery of Primary Site to 20 [Local tumor excision, NOS]. Because the procedure was performed via colonoscopy and apparently did not involve proctectomy, the best choice is a local excision. 2004
20041023 Histology (Pre-2007)--Lung: Should "moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of scar type, intermixed with bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma" be coded to 8250 [bronchiolo-alveolar adenocarcinoma, NOS] or 8255 [adenocarcinoma of mixed subtypes]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code Histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. This is a single tumor containing both a scar carcinoma and a bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma--use 8255. The synonym for 8255 is adenocarcinoma combined with other types of carcinoma (not just subtypes).

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.

 2004
20041043 First Course Cancer-Directed Treatment--Bladder: How should Mitomycin-C instillation for bladder cancer be coded?

Code the instillation of Mitomycin-C into the bladder for a bladder primary in both the Chemotherapy and Surgery to Primary Site fields. Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. Mitomycin-C is listed in SEER book 8 as a chemotherapeutic drug, specifically an alkylating agent.

Also, code the Surgery of Primary Site field to 15 [intravesical therapy]. Code the surgical procedure as well as the type of drug (chemotherapy in this case).

 2004
20041047 Multiple primaries (Pre-2007)/EOD-Extension--Fallopian Tube: How many primaries are coded when endometrioid adenocarcinoma involves bilateral fallopian tubes? See Discussion. The pathologist states "because of the intimate association with the luminal line of the fallopian tube it is felt that this represents synchronous primaries rather than mets." The SEER Code Manual only lists ovary, retinoblastomas, and Wilms Tumors under the bilateral code stated to be a single primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Complete two abstracts, one for left fallopian tube and one for right fallopian tube. This case has been determined to be two primaries by the pathologist. Bilateral involvement of paired sites (other than ovary, retinoblastoma and Wilms tumor) with the same histology within two months requires a determination of whether there are one or two primaries. The pathologist in the case above has made this determination.

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.

 2004
20041029

Ambiguous Terminology/Reportability: Are the terms "bordering on" and "may represent" diagnostic of cancer? See Discussion.

Pathology report states "...florid micropapillary hyperplasia, focally atypical with features bordering on low grade micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ."

The terms "bordering on" and "may represent" are not diagnostic of cancer. These terms are not on the list of ambiguous terms that constitute a diagnosis of cancer. The diagnosis in the example above is not reportable to SEER.

 2004
20041079 CS Mets at Dx/CS Mets Eval--Colon: Would the metastasis field be coded to 00 [No; none] and the evaluation field be coded to 1 [No path exam of metastatic tissue performed.] when the source of information is from the operative findings for the following 6 different cases? 1) Liver normal; 2) No evidence of metastatic disease; mesentery normal, 3) Small ascites; no liver metastasis, mass adherent to duodenum without obvious invasion, 4) No mets or local invasion, 5) No evidence of carcinomatosis, peritoneal studding or malignant effusion and 6) Tumor adherent to lateral sidewall (path negative); no evidence of metastatic implants.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

The CS Mets Eval code refers to the method used to evaluate the site farthest from the primary site. The correct code may not be the highest eval code. For example 1 above, if the liver is the site farthest from the colon primary that was evaluated for distant mets, code the CS Mets Eval code to the method used to evaluate liver. Code surgical evaluation as 1.

Assuming this is all of the information about possible distant metastatic sites for the examples above, code CS Mets at DX as 00, and CS Mets Eval as 1 for each.

Please note: imaging of farther sites should also be included when CS Mets at DX is coded. For example, if there was also a negative chest X-ray, the CS Mets at DX field would be 00 but the CS Mets Eval field would be 0 because the CXR documents that there are no mets beyond the immediate area of the tumor.

 2004