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: 02/15/2026 06:16 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061037 Multiple Primaries/Histology--Lymphoma: If a gastric biopsy demonstrates large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? See Discussion.

Final path for gastric biopsy on 12/2005 is "consistent with malignant lymphoma" and Micro says "morphologic findings consistent with MALT lymphoma and an increased proportion of large atypical cells is concerning for large cell transformation. However, since the large cells are present only focally, a definitive diagnosis of large cell lymphoma cannot be rendered"

A second gastric biopsy a week later said: Final Path: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma arising in low grade MALT lymphoma. Micro says: "Compared to patient's previous biopsy...the current specimen contains a higher percentage of large atypical cells which stain positively for CD79a, a B cell marker. The morphologic and immunohistochemical findings are consistent with a large B cell lymphoma arising in a low grade MALT lymphoma."

These are different primaries according to the table of single versus subsequent primaries of lymphatic and hematopoietic diseases.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

This is one primary. Code as 9699 [Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, NOS].

The first biopsy was not conclusive. The biopsy one week later was more definitive. The reports are describing a difference between specimens, not a difference in disease.

According to the WHO classification, extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is an extranodal lymphoma with B-cells, cells resembling monocytoid cells, small lymphocytes and scattered immunoblast and centroblast-like cells.

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.

 2006
20061063 CS Extension--Lung: Do notes 6A and 6B in the 2004 SEER manual offer conflicting instruction for determining the significance of pleural effusion for this primary site? See Discussion.

1. Is note B to be used to modify or change what note A states?

Does note B state -- If a pleural fluid bx(s) is negative; but the fluid is bloody and/or is an exudate, and clinical judgment indicates the effusion is related to tumor -- use code 72?

If a pleural effusion is biopsied should the pathology report state the color of the pleural fluid or is an exudate? (Training issue)

2. Do the following clinical findings impact the clinical evaluation of involvement for a pleural effusion? If yes, why? (Training issue(s))

a. Heart problems?

b. The location of the pleural effusion?

i. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in Rt or Lt lung only?

ii. Bilateral pleural effusion is noted; tumor in both lungs?

iii. Pleural effusion is noted on the opposite side from the tumor?

iv. Pleural effusion is on same side as the tumor?

SUPPORTING CS MANUAL DOCUMENTATION

Note 6: Pleural Effusion.

A. Note from SEER manual: Ignore pleural effusion that is negative for tumor. Assume that a pleural effusion is negative if a resection is done.

B. Note from AJCC manual: Most pleural effusions associated with lung cancers are due to tumor. However, there are a few patients in whom multiple cytopathologic examinations of pleural fluid are negative for tumor.

In these cases, fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate. When these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumor, the effusion should be excluded as a staging element and the patient should be staged T1, or T2, or T3.

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.

1. Note B does not modify or change note A. Note B is explaining when an effusion should not be used to determine the stage. Pleural effusions are evaluated by cytology, not biopsy.

2. If relevant, the clinician should document the fact in the medical record. Heart problems can cause non-malignant pleural effusions (that are disregarded for staging). Pleural effusion will almost always be around the lower lobes due to gravity, but may envelop an entire lung. Pleural effusions can be unilateral or bilateral regardless of the location of the tumor, but are usually on the side where the tumor is.

 2006
20061135 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "refractory cytopenia with excess blasts" discovered on a bone marrow biopsy reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) is reportable. RCEB is the same disease process as refractory anemia with excess blasts, except there is more than one type of blood cell that is low (red, white, platelets).

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.

 2006
20061101 CS Site Specific Factor--Colon: If the patient has a polypectomy followed by definitive surgery, can a higher CEA reported after the polypectomy but before the colon resection be coded?

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.If the tumor was in the polyp, do not use the post-polypectomy CEA even if it is higher than CEA's prior to the polypectomy. In this situation, the polypectomy would be treatment.

Conversely, if this is a frank adenocarcinoma or the tumor was so invasive that the polyp removed only a portion, use the post-polypectomy CEA because the polypectomy would not be treatment in this situation.

 2006
20061053 Diagnostic Confirmation: How is this field coded for a case with a cytology that is suspicious for ductal carcinoma and the clinical diagnosis is carcinoma? See Discussion. SINQ 20031152 states that histology for this type of case is to be coded per the clinical diagnosis of "carcinoma." Does it follow then that Diagnostic Confirmation is to be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? Would we code Diagnostic Confirmation differently if the clinician stated that the diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed by the suspicious cytology?

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 [clincial diagnosis] when there is a suspicious cytology and a physician's clinical diagnosis. Do not accession cases with only suspicious cytology.

Code diagnostic confirmation as 8 when the clinician's diagnosis of malignancy is confirmed by the suspicious cytology. It is still a clinical diagnosis made by the physician using the information available for the case.

 2006
20061020 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For cases diagnosed in 2005, if a specimen contains an invasive 4.5 cm lobular carcinoma of the right breast and also has a tiny focus of intraepidermal tumors cells [Paget disease of nipple], how many cases should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There are two primaries in this example:

1. Invasive lobular carcinoma [8520/3]

2. In situ Paget disease of nipple [8540/2].

There is no combination code for lobular carcinoma and Paget disease.

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.

 2006
20061039 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: Should the tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm or 2.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 or 030 respectively for a tumor with invasive and in situ components described as being a 2.5 cm tumor with a "greater than" 1.5 cm invasive portion? See Discussion. Should tumor size be coded to 1.5 cm and SSF6 coded to 020 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of invasive component stated and coded in CS Tumor Size] or should the tumor size be 2.5 cm with SSF6 coded to 030 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated and in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]?

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 992 [stated as greater than 1 cm] and SSF6 code 020.

The September 2006 revision to the CS Tumor Size table now lists the 992-995 range codes as "greater than ___ cm."

It is better to code the invasive size than the entire size of the tumor. In the TNM mapping, this would more accurately portray the tumor as T1c rather than T2.

 2006
20061139 CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: Do modifying terms such as "borderline" affect whether lymph nodes are coded as involved when they are used in conjunction with the descriptors listed in Note 2 (i.e., mass, adenopathy or enlargement) for lung primaries? See Discussion. Lung primary: CT states "borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes. Note 2 in the Lung schema under CS Lymph Nodes does not address qualifiers.

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.

Do not code the hilar lymph nodes as involved in this case. "Borderline" enlarged hilar lymph nodes do not meet the clinical criteria for enlargement.

 2006
20061090 CS Extension--Prostate: Does the term "activity" in a Prostascint report indicate a clinically apparent tumor, tumor extension or tumor involvement for this primary site? (http://www.rtrurology.com/prostascint.htm)

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.

No, the term "activity" alone does not indicate clinically apparent tumor or involvement.

 2006
20061024 Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How is a "mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma" coded? See Discussion. Literature search results: "The new WHO-classification of renal tumors includes new subtypes, one of which is the mucinous, tubular, and spindle cell carcinoma. Many of these tumors had been previously diagnosed as sarcomatoid carcinoma. There are areas of cord-like growth and spindle cell configuration, sometimes with a clear cell appearance."

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code histology to 8255 [Adenocarcinoma with mixed subtypes]. ICD-O-3 does not have a code specific to this combination histology. 8255 is the best code available.

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.

 2006