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: 02/11/2026 06:22 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051112 Collaborative Staging--Hematopoietic, NOS: Which Collaborative Staging schema is used for a connective, subcutaneous and soft tissue primary of the pelvis [C495] with the morphology of Langerhans cell sarcoma [9756/39]? See Discussion. On page C-411 of the SEER manual for the connective, subcutaneous, and other soft tissues schema it lists exceptions for certain morphologies and the above is not listed as an exception. On the Hematopoietic scheme it lists the above morphology.

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.Use the hematopoietic schema on page C-709 of the 2004 SEER manual. The histologically defined schemas have priority over the site schemas when both apply. See page 115 of the 2004 SEER manual.

The morphology codes listed on page C-411 pertain to the SEER Site Specific Guidelines.

 2005
20051020 CS Extension/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: How is extension (localized or unknown) and SSF6 (entire tumor in situ or 888) coded for an in situ breast primary in which bone metastasis is diagnosed 4 months following the mastectomy? See Discussion. In situ breast primary with bone mets. No mets work up prior to mastectomy done 2/04. Path: 2.5 cm mass: ductal carcinoma in situ, solid type, with comedonecrosis (no invasive carcinoma found in mastectomy specimen). Bone scan done 4/04 showed compression fractures. MRI 6/04 showed diffuse metastatic disease of the bones.

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.

First, determine whether the bone mets in this case are progression of disease. If the patient was asymptomatic at the time of the mastectomy, the bone mets are disease progression, not initial stage.

If the initial stage includes the bone mets and they are not disease progression, extension must be coded to at least 10. Code site-Specific Factor 6 to 040 [Size of entire tumor coded, size of invasive component not stated].

 2005
20051006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: How is histology coded for the tumor(s) that exist when the thyroidectomy addendum diagnosis is "Morphologic and IHC evaluations reveal two tumors: papillary thyroid carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma." See Discussion. The original final diagnosis after a thyroidectomy is "papillary carcinoma of the thyroid with an adjacent invasive squamous cell carcinoma, moderately differentiated." Per the additional addendum comment: "The findings can be interpreted in one of 2 different ways. Either there is a collision tumor of papillary thyroid and squamous cell carcinoma (with the squamous cell ca originating at a site other than the thyroid gland.) Or, less likely, there is a malignant squamous differentiation in the papillary thyroid carcinoma." A university hospital consultation report states the diagnosis as: "Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma arising in association and from papillary carcinoma, predominantly tall cell variant..." Is this 2 thyroid primaries: 8344/3 [papillary carcinoma, tall cell] and 8074/3 [squamous cell carcinoma, spindle cell]?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Our pathologist consultant agrees with the consultant's diagnosis. Therefore, abstract this as one primary of the thyroid. Code the histology as 8344 [Papillary tall cell]. This is the most appropriate histology code available for this complex case.

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.

 2005
20051080 Priorities/CS Extension--Lung: In the absence of a physician TNM, is there a hierarchy associated with coding extension when multiple imaging studies demonstrate different degrees of extension? See Discussion. CT of the lung showing primary lesion and other nodules in another lobe or contralateral lung, subpleural nodules, etc. The PET scan did not show activity for the other nodules. What is our "hierarchy" for imaging studies when there is no physician staging?

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.

There is no hierarchy among the various imaging studies. Assign CS extension based on the report documenting the greatest extension.

 2005
20051068 CS Extension--Retinoblastoma: When the degree of extension differs between the retinas, how is extension coded for simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?

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 the CS extension code that corresponds to the greatest level of extension seen in either eye, excluding information from enucleation.

Record extension based on enucleation in Site Specific Factor 1.

Record bilateral disease under laterality. For retinoblastomas, bilaterality is not a component or consideration for staging.

 2005
20051028 Date of Diagnosis--Bladder: Should the date of diagnosis be based on the 1/7/04 urine cytology with low grade transitional cell carcinoma or the subsequent 1/27/04 pathology findings of papillary transitional cell carcinoma? In this case, the date of the cytology is the date of diagnosis, 01-07-2004. 2005
20051015 Priorities/CS Tumor Size--Breast: What is the priority order used in coding tumor size for this site when there is a larger 2 cm lesion noted on the PET scan and smaller sizes described in the pathology report as two malignant masses one measuring 0.8 cm and the second measuring 1.0 cm per the GROSS?

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.Code CS Tumor Size as 1.0 cm. The pathology report is the highest priority source for coding tumor size. When multiple tumors are present, code the size of the largest tumor.

 2005
20051139 Date of Diagnosis--Lung: Should the diagnosis date be coded to the date of the scan or the date of the resection when there is a negative biopsy that occurs between the two procedures? See Discussion.

11/2003 CT chest: 2 cm LLL mass should be considered carcinoma until proven otherwise.

2/2004 CT Chest: stable LLL mass still consistent with primary or metastatic lung neoplasm

11/2004 CT chest: LLL mass suspicious for slow growing carcinoma

3/2005 FNA L lung: atypical cells

4/2005 L lobectomy: well-diff adenocarcinoma

 Code the date of diagnosis as 11/2003. A clinical diagnosis was made on 11/2003 and this is the earliest date of diagnosis for this case. 2005
20051030 CS Eval--All Sites: If any of the CS fields (TS/Extension, LN, or Mets) are based on the TNM and there is no text documenting the basis for the evaluation, are the evaluation fields coded to 0 instead of 1?

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 code 0 [No surgical resection done...based on physical exam...or other non-invasive clinical evidence] to the corresponding eval fields when CS Extension, Lymph Nodes or Mets at Diagnosis are coded based only on the TNM and no further information is available.

 2005
20051046

Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation--Leukemia: What is the diagnostic confirmation if a positive BCR/ABL result is diagnostic of a malignancy in a patient suspected to have chronic myelogenous leukemia? See Discussion.

Example 1: Peripheral smear states: "No morphologic evidence of chronic myelogenous leukemia."

Addendum: Molecular diagnostic studies showed a positive rearrangement for the BCR gene with the M-bcr (CML type) and of bcr-abl transcript expression".

Example 2: Hematopathology is negative.

Molecular diagnostic study: "fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies exceeded the limits established by the XXX Cytogenetics Laboratory for this probe set, and thus, demonstrated statistical evidence of BCR/ABL fusion."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Do not determine reportablility using cytogenetics or molecular studies alone.

Since these are not routine screening tests, we suggest that you query the physician and review the medical record to see what prompted the study and what is being done with the result, but the test alone is not in and of itself sufficient to report the case.

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.

 2005