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: 04/29/2026 23:16 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071069 First Course Treatment--Melanoma: How and where is the excision for an in-transit metastasis coded if the in-transit metastasis is coded in CS Lymph Nodes? See Discussion. Excision of skin of scalp nodule reveals in transit metastasis of melanoma. Patient also has lung metastasis and begins systemic treatment. No primary tumor identified. Code the excision in Surgical Procedure of Other Site because no primary tumor was identified. 2007
20071066 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Can grade be coded from the pathology report for a recurrent bladder cancer specimen? See Discussion. In 2006 a TURB was done for bladder carcinoma diagnosed 10 years ago. Is grade always coded 9 on class 3 cases unless the original slides were reviewed?

Code grade from the original tumor; do not code grade from recurrence.

If the grade of the original primary tumor is specified, code it, regardless of class of case.

 2007
20071022 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion.

Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.

Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?

Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.

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
20071017 CS Extension--Prostate: Can the phrase "hard, fixed prostate" be interpreted as clinical extracapsular extension and coded to 50 [extension or fixation to other structures]? See Discussion.

Patient had a "hard, fixed prostate" with needle core bx positive for Gleason grade 4+5=9 adenocarcinoma extensively involving gland. PSA was 87.5. Lymphadenectomy showed 3 positive pelvic/obturator lymph nodes. No prostatectomy was done and no physician TNM staging documented.

Do we need a specific clinical description of other organs to which the prostate is fixed in order to code CS Clinical Extension 50, or does the statement "hard, fixed prostate" qualify? If not, how would we code extension for this seemingly advanced cancer?

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 extension code 50 [extension or fixation to adjacent structures] based on the term "fixed." Fixation to a particular structure(s) does not have to be specified in order to use code 50.

Do not use the statement "hard" to determine CS extension.

 2007
20071038 MP/H Rules/Histology--Brain and CNS: Is it generally correct that the code for PNET [9473/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord, and the code for pPNET [9364/3] should be used to code tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue? See Discussion.

The terms and definitions for "Brain" in the 2007 MP/H rules distinguish between pPNET and PNET. Is it correct even when the diagnostic terminology alone would lead to other coding, such as "PNET" used to diagnose a soft tissue mass in the chest and "neuroectodermal tumor" used to diagnose a brain mass?

Should additional rules be added to both "Brain" and "Other Sites" to enforce this distinction?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Yes. Assign code 9473/3 for tumors arising in the brain and spinal cord and assign code 9364/3 for tumors arising in the bone and soft tissue.

Clarification and reinforcement of this distinction will be added to the "Other sites" terms and definitions with the first revision to the MP/H rules.

 2007
20071056 Reportability/Terminology--Prostate: Is the diagnosis of "atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma" sufficient to report a prostate cancer if a note states that there is "insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy"? See Discussion.

Date of report is July 2005. One positive specimen of 12.

Specimen 6: Diagnosis = Prostate tissue with a small focus of atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma. Note. There is insufficient cytologic and/or architectural atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. Negative basal cell staining with cytokeratin... in atypical glands is consistent with the diagnosis of suspicious for adenocarcinoma. In addition, the diagnosis is suppported by a positive staining for alpha-methyl COA racemase (P504S), a recently discovered marker that is preferentially expressed in prostate cancer...

This case is reportable. The diagnosis states "suspicious for adenocarcinoma." "Suspicious for" is a reportable ambiguous term.

The additional stains supported this "suspicious" diagnosis. A more definitive diagnosis could not be made based on this specimen.

 2007
20071029 CS Lymph Nodes--Kidney, renal pelvis: Under what circumstances would code 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] be used to document the presence of positive lymph nodes? See Discussion. The CS Schema for Kidney (Renal Parenchyma) states to use code 70 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. The schema for for Renal Pelvis states to use code 50 for Regional Lymph Nodes, NOS. Both schemas have a Code 80, for Lymph Nodes, NOS that maps to N1 in both schemas.

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 80 can be used for positive lymph nodes when you are unable to determine if they are regional or distant. CS Lymph Nodes code 80 is provided for this situation in accordance with the downstaging rule.

Code 80 should be used very infrequently and only when there is no indication whether the involved lymph nodes are regional or distant.

 2007
20071116 Behavior--Bladder: What behavior code is used for a TURB path specimen diagnosis of "non-invasive urothelial carcinoma, no muscle found, depth of invasion cannot be assessed" when the clinician stages the case as Ta? See Discussion. The SEER site specific coding module for bladder says, "If the only surgery performed is a TURB and if it is documented that depth of invasion cannot be measured because there is no muscle in the specimen, code the behavior as malignant and not in situ."

Assign behavior code 2 [in situ] based on the physician's stage Ta.

When no other information is available and the TNM designation is not available, use the instructions on page C-844 in Appendix C of the 2007 SEER manual as a default.

 2007
20071074 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an "adenocarcinoma" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of "bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma" in the same lung? See Discussion.

In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3].

Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis?

Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries.

 2007
20071010 MP/H Rules/Histology--Prostate: While cases of "acinar adenocarcinoma" of the prostate are required to be abstracted with the histology code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS] for cases diagnosed 1/1/07 or later, can 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] be used for cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/07? See Discussion. The SEER Multiple Primary and Histology manual, effective with 2007 forward diagnosis dates, indicates that this histology should be coded to 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, NOS]. Does this contradict ICD-O-3? Can acinar adenocarcinoma be coded for other primary sites?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate as 8140/3.

Prior to diagnosis year 2007, code 8550/3 [acinar adenocarcinoma] may be used for prostate cases and for acinar adenocarcinoma of other sites, such as pancreas.

 2007