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: 02/10/2026 20:42 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061071 CS Extension--Lymphoma: In the absence of physician staging, is an "enlarged" spleen seen on CT coded as involvement of the spleen for lymphoma cases?

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 spleen involvement when the only evidence is an enlarged spleen.

When imaging is the only diagnostic tool (no biopsy or splenectomy), spleen involvement is based on the presence of nodules and not on enlargement. Splenic enlargement alone (by physical exam or imaging) is insufficient to support involvement of spleen.

 2006
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
20061126 Histology--Leukemia: How is a "plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia/lymphoma" coded when it is discovered on a bone marrow biopsy for a patient who presented with multiple enlarged lymph nodes and the discharge diagnosis was Type 2 plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

The best code currently available for this entity is 9727/3 [precursor cell lymphoblastic leukemia].

The WHO classification refers to this as "Blastic NK-cell lymphoma." The 2005 WHO-EORTC classification for cutaneous lymphomas states that blastic NK-cell lymphoma may be derived from a plasmacytoid dendritic cell precursor. They suggest more appropriate terms for this condition may be "CD4+/CD56+ hematodermic neoplasm," and "early plasmacytoid dendritic cell leukemia/lymphoma." According to WHO, this is a rare form of lymphoma.

Willemze, et al. WHO-EORTC classification for cutaneous lymphomas. Blood, 15 May 2005. Volume 105, Number 10.

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
20061008 Histology (Pre-2007)--Corpus uteri: How is a polyp with "endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma" coded? See Discussion. The path report for the TAH stated the endometrium contained an endometrial polyp measuring 6x3x3cm. Within the polyp there was endometrial carcinosarcoma (Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor), endometrial adenocarcinoma, and some areas of high grade spindle sarcoma. There is no myometrial invasion by the tumor. (The Endometrial bx before surgery was positive for Malignant Mixed Mullerian tumor.)

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8980 [Carcinosarcoma, NOS]. According to the WHO Classification of tumors, Malignant mullerian mixed tumor is a synonym for carcinosarcoma and carcinosarcoma is now the preferred terminology rather than malignant mixed Mullerian tumor.

Carcinosarcoma has both malignant epithelial and mesenchymal components. The epithelial component is usually glandular (adenocarcinoma in this case). The mesenchymal component is usually sarcoma (as in this 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.

 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
20061031 CS Extension--Head & Neck: If a 2 cm left tonsil primary extends to the lateral aspect of the soft palate, should extension be coded to 40 [Soft palate, inferior surface including uvula or soft palate NOS] or 42 [Soft palate, superior (nasopharyngeal) surface] for a tonsil primary?

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.

Extension code 40 is for extension from the tonsil to the back (lower) part of the soft palate, or soft palate, NOS. Code 42 is for extension to the front (higher, nasopharyngeal surface) part of the soft palate.

Inferior soft palate is the back (lower) part of the soft palate (C051). Superior soft palate is the front, (nasopharyngeal surface) of the soft palate (C113).

Assign CS extension code 40 to the case above.

 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
20061019

CS Site Specific Factor 6--Breast: If the tumor size for the breast is unknown, and it is unknown whether the tumor is mixed in situ and invasive or "pure", how is SSF6 to be coded? See Discussion.

The definition for SSF6 for breast changed from "Unknown if invasive and in situ components present, unknown if tumor size represents mixed tumor or a pure tumor" to an added clarification of "Clinical tumor size coded." Since the clinical tumor size is NOT coded, this does not fit.

The definition for 060 is "Invasive and in situ components present, unknown size of tumor (CS Tumor Size coded 999). Since it is unknown if the tumor is mixed, this definition does not fit either.

It seems that the revised (April 2005) definition for 888 has left a situation that cannot 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.SSF 6 should be coded 888 in this case. SEER will make the CS task force aware of this situation.

 2006
20061062 Reportability: Is a "pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumor of soft parts (PHAT)" reportable if the case has a TNM stage assigned and is stated by the pathologist to be a rare intermediate grade sarcoma?

Pleomorphic hyalinizing angiectatic tumors of the soft parts are not reportable.

According to our pathologist consultant, PHAT is a borderline malignancy (/1). While the true nature of these tumors is under debate (reactive vs. neoplastic), so far none have metastasized.

 2006
20061094

Ambiguous terminology: Does the phrase "considered to be" represent ambiguous terminology when modifying a reportable term?

A tumor considered to be malignant is reportable. "Considered to be" is an UNambiguous term.

 2006