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 21:43 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20071081 CS Site Specific Factor--Lymphoma: Can the registrar calculate the International Prognostic Index (IPI) score from information found in the H&P or on the back of a TNM form for the SSF 3 field if the physician does not document it in the medical record?

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.Record the IPI score in SSF3 when the score is documented in the medical record. If the score is not stated, do not calculate it.

 2007
20081062 MP/H Rules/Date of Diagnosis/Behavior--Brain and CNS: How many primaries would be reported when a December 2004 MRI shows a pineal region mass with the major differential consideration being pineocytoma; a November 2007 MRI that shows the mass has almost tripled in size; and the December 2007 resection final diagnosis is consistent with pineoblastoma? How would diagnosis date[s] and behavior code[s] be coded? See Discussion.

Dec. 2004 MRI of brain: Pineal region mass. The major differential consideration given patient's gender, age group, and imaging characteristics is pineocytoma. The differential includes pineoblastoma or germ cell line tumor. These are felt less likely.

Nov. 2005 MRI brain: stable exam since last MRI. No change in size.

Nov. 2007 MRI studies: pineal mass has almost tripled in size.

Dec. 2007 Surgical resection of pineal tumor: High grade (WHO Grade IV) pineal parenchymal neoplasm consistent with pineoblastoma.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract as separate primaries:

  • 12/2004 pineocytoma (9361/1)

  • 12/2007 pineoblastoma (9362/3)

    • Complete two abstracts when a previously diagnosed non-malignant tumor transforms or progresses to a malignancy. Refer to the CDC/NPCR guidelines for Data Collection of Primary Central Nervous System Tumors, 2004. Malignant transformation is discussed on page 50.

    		2008
    		20081060 CS Tumor Size--Lung: If a 5/11/07 CT showed a 6.5 cm LLL mass and a 7/24/07 CT showed 8.4 cm LLL mass, do we code the larger tumor size identified within four months of diagnosis or do we code the first size documented at the time of diagnosis?

    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 the larger tumor size.

    		 2008
    		20081100

    MP/H Rules/Histology--Rectum: When not specifically mentioned as part of the histology, is the adenoma a second histologic type, or just a further physical description of the tumor? See Discussion.

    Rectal tumor resection (APR) path report final dx: "mucinous carcinoma, see comment". The comment is the CAP-format tumor summary, which states "histologic type: adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma). Additional pathologic findings: adenomas - tumor arises in a tubulovillous adenoma".

    If you follow the rules and only use the final dx, you would code a different histology than if you use the 'additional path findings.'

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later

    Other Sites histology rule H12 applies in this case. Assign histology code 8263 [adenocarcinoma in tubulovillous adenoma].

    Use information from the CAP protocol and from comments associated with the final diagnosis to code histology.

    The fact that the malignancy arose in a polyp can be taken from anywhere in the medical record; not limited to the final diagnosis.

    Based on the information provided for this case, the histology is adenocarcinoma with extensive mucin production (mucinous or colloid carcinoma) arising in a tubulovillous adenoma.

    		 2008
    		20081031

    MP/H Rules--Breast: How many primaries are abstracted if a mastectomy specimen reveals two separate invasive tumors:

    #1: Invasive apocrine carcinoma, poorly differentiated, 1.2cm, (9 o'clock). -Apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), high-grade with comedo necrosis; 2.0cm (9:30 o'clock).

    #2: Invasive ductal carcinoma, well-differentiated, 1.0cm (12:30 o'clock). -Minor component of DCIS, low-grade? See Discussion.

    		 In the MP/H Rules, Table 1 lists apocrine as a type of intraductal carcinoma. Apocrine does not appear in Table 2, the list of specific duct carcinomas. If Apocrine is a type of ductal carcinoma, then Rule M11 would make this a single primary. If it is a single primary, what is the histology?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    Using rule M11, there is one primary in the left breast. Apocrine is a specific duct carcinoma. To make this more clear, apocrine will be added to Table 2 in a future revision.

    To code the histology, go to the multiple tumors module and start with rule H20. Stop at rule H29 and code the histology with the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8500/3.

    		 2008
    		20081026 MP/H rules/Multiple primaries: Is a 2007 cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct a new primary for a patient with a 2005 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of gallbladder? See Discussion.

    A case abstracted for an adenocarcinoma of gallbladder (C23.9) in 2005. In 2007, cytology diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in bile duct(C24.0). Oncologist calls this recurrence. There is no pathologist statement of recurrence.

    Using Other Sites multiple primary rules, rule M10 indicates this is multiple primaries. Sequence 01 dx in 2005 and sequence 02 dx in 2007. Is this correct? There is no statement of a primary tumor; the MP/H rules talk in terms of mass, lesion, tumor in a primary site.

    		 For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 2007 bile duct diagnosis as a new primary unless it is described as metastatic. 2008
    		20081135

    MP/H Rules--Lung: Per rule M8, tumors of the same site (left lung), same histology (NSCC), greater than 3 yrs apart are separate primaries.

    However, there was a recurrence to mediastinal LNs after 2 years. Would that make a difference as to whether the 2008 left lung carcinoma is reportable as a new primary or not? See Discussion.

    		 Scenario: NSCC 2004 LLL with positive hilar/mediastinal LNs treated with LLL lobectomy, chemo and rad. 2006 per CT/PET recurrence in mediastinal LNs treated with chemoradiation. 2008 left lung nodule positive for NSCC stated by MD to be recurrence from 2004 (2008 path not compared to 2004 path).

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    The 2008 lung carcinoma is a separate primary according to rule M8. The 2006 diagnosis is metastases to the lymph nodes. Do not apply the MP/H rules to metastases.

    		 2008
    		20081039 Diagnostic Confirmation/Histology--Hematopoietic: How are these fields coded when the final pathologic diagnosis for a bone marrow biopsy differs from the final clinical diagnosis of a hematopoietic disease? See Discussion.

    Frequently, pathology reports describe hematopoietic diseases using ambiguous terms. Flow cytology and cytogenetics may be obtained. It appears that the clinician is the person who pulls all the information together for a diagnosis.

    Example: Bone marrow biopsy is most compatible with chronic phase myeloproliferative disease. Path comment: Differential would include CML. Outside hematology report indicates an elevated peripheral WBC, primarily neutrophils. Flow cytometry showed 1.0 % of the white cells are myeloid blasts of abnormal phenotype, additionally finding 7.3 % basophils. Flow reported peripheral blasts at 1.2 % and peripheral basophilia. Cytogenetics report showed abnormality with trisomy of chromosomes 13 and 21. This finding is consistent with a clonal abnormality suggestive of acquired disease. Results were consistent with the absence of the t(9,22)(q34;q11) translocation or fusion product associated with CML. Subsequent clinical impression: Bone marrow evaluation most consistent with CML. Overall features most consistent with CML.

    For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field as 1 [positive histology]. Code the ICD-O-3 morphology based on the clinician's statement.

    The code in Diagnostic Confirmation pertains to the best method used to confirm the presence of cancer over the entire course of the disease. Therefore, if a bone marrow report confirms cancer, code 1 [positive histology] in Diagnostic Confirmation.

    Code the histology using all of the information available. The clinician has access to all of the information relating to this case. The pathologist had only the bone marrow. Code the histology recorded by the clinician.

    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.

    		 2008
    		20081101

    MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: If a 1.7 cm LUL lung tumor is not treated surgically, would a 2.1 cm tumor in the same lobe three years later be a new primary? See Discussion.

    In 2004 the patient has a 1.7cm squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed in the LUL of the lung treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2007, the patient was diagnosed with a 2.1cm squamous cell carcinoma in the LUL treated with radiation. According to the lung MP/H rules, the 2007 tumor would be a new primary. Given that there was no surgery, would the second tumor be progression of disease or would it be a new primary?

    For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

    If the tumor diagnosed in 2004 was successfully treated and disappeared, apply the MP/H rules for lung. According to rule M8, the 2004 tumor and the 2007 tumor are multiple primaries. If there was no disease-free interval between tumor occurrences, that is, if the 2007 tumor is still the same tumor that was diagnosed in 2004, the MP/H rules do not apply.

    		 2008
    		20081048 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Mets at Dx--Ovary: How are renal lymph nodes coded for ovary primaries?

    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 involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx. Renal lymph nodes are not listed as regional lymph nodes for ovary; therefore, code involvement of renal lymph nodes under CS Mets at Dx.

    		 2008