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: 02/09/2026 22:40 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20041072 Histology (Pre-2007)--Colon: Must a case be specifically labeled "familial adenomatous polyposis" or is the mere presence of numerous/multiple polyps sufficient for coding the histology to FAP?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

The presence of numerous/multiple polyps is not necessarily adenomatous polyposis coli. Adenomatous polyposis is an extreme condition usually characterized by the presence of hundreds of polyps and should be identified as such either clinically or pathologically.

Look for the term "Familial adenomatous polyposis," FAP or one of its synonyms:

Adenomatosis of the colon and rectum [ACR]

Familial adenomatous colon polyposis

Familial colonic polyposis

Multiple familial polyposis

In the absence of these terms, the following probably indicate a diagnosis of FAP:

Hundreds of adenomatous polyps throughout large intestines, and at times, throughout the digestive system

Development of polyps as early as ten years of age, but more commonly at puberty

History of colectomy

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
20041049 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is best used to represent a diagnosis of "metaplastic carcinoma, matrix producing type." The tumor shows poorly differentiated infiltrating duct carcinoma and myxoid, cartilaginous stroma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the histology to 8575 [metaplastic carcinoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs, metaplastic carcinoma is a type of epithelial breast tumor. Matrix producing carcinoma is a synonym of metaplastic carcinoma. ICD-O-3 does not have a code for matrix producing carcinoma.

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
20041051 First Course Treatment/Immunotherapy--Colon: Can "Sandostatin" be coded for treatment of carcinoid tumors of the colon because it flushes tumor cells from the colon in addition to controlling diarrhea? Do not code Sandostatin (Ocreotide Acetate) as treatment. This is an ancillary drug used to treat symptoms of diarrhea. SEER Book 8 is undergoing revision and will include this change. 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
20041088 CS Extension/EOD Extension--Renal Pelvis: Primary site is renal pelvis with direct extension to the rt adrenal gland. What is the correct extension code?

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.

Assign CS Extension code 67 [Adrenal gland from renal pelvis] for adrenal extension from renal pelvis -- T4 and regional direct extension.

 2004
20041083 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.

Rectal primary:

5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.

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.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.

 2004
20041093 Reportability: When a biopsy is suspicious for cancer and re-biopsy is negative, is reportability based on the clinician's judgement (cancer vs NED)? If the re-biopsy was done because the first biopsy was inconclusive, do not report this case. If the re-biopsy was more complete, or performed in an attempt to gain a wider margin, this case is reportable based on the first biopsy. 2004
20041026 CS Tumor Size--Ovary: The size of a cyst is not coded in this field. However, can the size of a "cystic mass" be coded in this field? See Discussion. The specimen consists of a cystic mass which weighs 1520 grams and measures 23 x 17 x 10 cm.

If the tumor is described as a "cystic mass" and only the size of the entire mass is given, code the size of the entire mass, because the cysts are part of the tumor itself.

Please note: Ovarian cancer stage is not based on tumor size.

 2004
20041095 Primary site: How is this field coded for a malignancy described as a "intracranial squamous cell carcinoma (8070) arising in a previous epidermoid cyst"? See Discussion.

4-5-02 MRI Brain: Enhancing mass is probably a recurrence of the original tumor resected in 1983 (benign). 4-8-02 Gross resection. Lesion was coming up against her brain stem: Removed it grossly.

Path: 4-8-02 Brain tumor, left temporal: SCC arising from a previous epidermoid cyst of the brain. XRT began 4-25-02.

Path states: "Squamous lesions suspicious for malignant transformation of old epidermal cyst (1983). It has been reported in literature that epidermoid cysts in the brain can undergo a malignant transformation which is what happened in this case."

It appears the patient has an intracranial epidermoid cyst that is now

giving rise to SCC. Squamous cell carcinoma (8070) of the brain (C71_) fails the edit Primary Site, Morphology-Imposs ICDO3 (SEER IF38).

 Code the primary site to C760 [Ill-defined site; Head, face or neck, NOS]. There is an intracranial malignancy arising from a previously resected epidermoid cyst. Squamous cell carcinoma, primary of the brain, is a non-overridable edit error. 2004
20041039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.

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