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: 04/30/2026 07:17 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071050 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: Regarding histology rule H21, is there a hierarchy or do you code the higher histology if there is an adenocarcinoma arising in a polyp and an adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

If you arrive at H21 and have an additional decision to make regarding the use of 8210, 8261 or 8263, you must make another pass through the histology rules. The second pass will determine which of the two or three histology codes to assign. The answer will vary depending of the specifics of the case.

Example:

Transverse colon: Adenocarcinoma in an adenomatous polyp involving muscularis propria and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma involving subserosa of transverse colon. Start with rule H15 because there are multiple tumors. Stop at H21 -- code either 8210 or 8261. To decide between 8210 and 8261, make a second pass through the histology rules, starting again with H15. Stop at H20. Code the histology of the most invasive tumor, 8210 [Adenocarcinoma in adenomatous polyp].

 2007
20071048 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: If the abstractor only has the CAP protocol information from a pathology report and it does not include a "final diagnosis" label, which fields of the protocol are used to determine the histology and whether there is carcinoma in situ present in the specimen? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, if the CAP protocol is used in lieu of a final diagnosis, use all of the information in the CAP protocol. 2007
20071035 CS Extension--Prostate: Should CS Clinical Extension always be coded to 99 [Extension unknown] for prostatic adenocarcinoma found incidentally during surgery for another primary or at autopsy? See Discussion.

Patient had a cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer. Pathology report states only 2 microscopic foci of prostate adenocarcinoma found on LEFT side of gland. Physician notes state patient has been followed for 4 years with a nodule in the RIGHT prostate and has refused biopsy despite rising PSA. There was no definite statement of suspected cancer.

Should CS Clinical Extension be coded 99 because prostate cancer wasn't clearly stated to have been suspected until cystoprostatectomy? Or could we code the right-sided "nodule" as clinically apparent (CS Extension 20), even though path found tumor only on the left (which is how we would code a standard prostate case)?

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 extension 99 [Extension unknown]. This prostate cancer was not clinically evident; it cannot be clinically assessed based on the information provided.

Note: This is an unusual case. A DRE was performed and a nodule was palpated on the right that was not cancer. The other lobe is presumed to have been negative because it was not mentioned.

 2007
20071084 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: How is an "acinar adenocarcinoma with focal large duct adenocarcinoma" coded?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

As long as this is NOT urothelial carcinoma extending to the prostatic ducts, code histology to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma] using rule H10.

Do not code histologies designated as "focal."

 2007
20071101 Multiplicity Counter/CS Tumor Size: The Multiplicity Counter rule 6c states "Use code 99 when the tumor is described as diffuse". Is code 99 used in all circumstances when tumor size is coded to 998? See Discussion. The CS manual lists esophagus, stomach, familila/familial polyposis (colon), lung, and breast as the only circumstances when code 998 is valid. If this is correct, then if TS is coded to 998, then Multiplicity Counter must be 99. If the number of tumors is known, code the number in Multiplicity Counter. If the number of tumors is not known, assign code 99. If "diffuse" is the only information available to describe the tumor, assign code 99. 2007
20071070 CS Tumor Size--Melanoma: How is this field coded when a smaller invasive and a larger in situ melanoma are reported as a single primary? See Discussion.

Patient has a 1.2 cm lesion right upper arm with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ. A second lesion on right wrist, 0.5 cm mole, has a diagnosis malignant melanoma, Breslow's 0.78, Clark's level III.

According to the 2007 MP/H rules, this is a single primary. Because the larger lesion is completely in situ, do you ignore it altogether and go with the smaller, invasive lesion? SEER Program Manual 2007, page 127, rule 4.l, states that when two lesions are reported as a single primary, code the size of the larger lesion, which in this case would be the in situ.

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 005 (0.5 cm). Code CS Tumor Size based on the invasive lesion.

Use the data items "Multiplicity Counter" and "Type of Multiple Tumors Reported as One Primary" to document that there are two tumors present, in situ and invasive.

 2007
20071114 Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: How would you code the diagnosis date when the body of an imaging report uses reportable ambiguous terminology while the final impression in that same report uses non-reportable ambiguous terminology? Would you code the diagnosis date to the date of the scan or to the subsequent biopsy date that confirmed a malignancy? See Discussion. Within the body of a mammogram report, the radiologist stated, "diffuse inflammatory tissue throughout the rt breast w/ large rt axillary lymph nodes, consistent with an inflammatory carcinoma of rt breast." His final impression, however, said "extremely suspicious rt breast w/ extremely dense breast parenchyma and adenopathy in axilla, suggesting an inflammatory carcinoma." The patient then went on to have a biopsy, which was indeed positive for cancer.

Accept the reportable ambiguous terminology from the body of the mammogram. Record the date of the mammogram as the date of diagnosis.

The guidelines on page 4 of the 2007 SEER manual addressing discrepancies within the medical record can be applied to discrepancies within one report.

The instructions are:

If one section of the medical record(s) uses a reportable term such as

apparently and another section of the medical record(s) uses a term that is not on the reportable list, accept the reportable term and accession the case.

 2007
20071026 MP/H Rules/Histology--Colon: When the microscopic description indicates a colon tumor is "tubulovillous," but the final diagnosis only states "adenocarcinoma," is the histology coded to 8263/3 [adenocarcinoma in a tubulovillous adenoma]?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. This is an example of a site-specific exception to the general rule to code only from the final diagnosis. The Colon Histology Rules specifically state that "other parts of the pathology report" may be used to identify a tumor arising from a polyp, adenomatous polyp, villous adenoma, or tubulovillous adenoma.

 2007
20071020 Histology--CLL/SLL: What is the correct histology code for a lymph node described in the pathology report comment section as "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia"? See Discussion. Current rules instruct us to select the lymphoma code for lymph node and/or tissue with the dual diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. We have a cervical lymph node biopsy with that dual diagnosis, however, the pathology comment states that after immunohistochemistry testing, the lymph node is "phenotypically consistent with chronic lymphocytic leukemia." No bone marrow or blood work-up is performed.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma. The current rules have not changed. Code to lymphoma because the diagnosis was made on a lymph node.

"Phenotypically consistent" means the lymph node contains CLL/SLL, not some other hematopoietic or metastatic disease.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, 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.

 2007
20071015 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Melanoma: How are these fields coded if a sentinel lymph node biopsy reveals no malignancy but there is an aggregate of melanoma cells in the lumen of a large vein immediately adjacent to the lymph nodes?

This question was answered by the CoC:

Do not count this as regional metastatic disease since there is no evidence it is an established tumor. Stage this as a N0.

 2007