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: 05/20/2026 21:39 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20081011 Surgery of Primary Site/CS Reg LN Exam/Scope Regional LN Surgery--Rectum: How are these fields coded when a patient develops a non-tumor related complication that requires an additional sigmoid resection that removes 2 additional lymph nodes one week following a low anterior resection that removed 4 lymph nodes? See Discussion. Patient had a low-lying rectal cancer that was biopsied and then treated with radiation and chemo followed by a low anterior resection. Four nodes were removed. There was no residual tumor. The patient returned one week later due to a rectal bleed, thought to be an abscess. During surgical exploration it was found that the anastomosis had broken down and it was decided to do a sigmoid colectomy. Residual disease was not suspected. Two additional nodes were removed.

Surgery of primary site: Assign code 30 [low anterior resection]. Code the most extensive surgery (i.e. the highest surgery code) applicable.

CS Reg LN Exam: Code 04 [four nodes removed].

Scope of regional lymph node surgery: Code 5 [4 or more regional lymph nodes removed].

The sigmoid colectomy was performed for a surgical complication, thus it was not cancer-directed therapy. The regional lymph nodes removed during that procedure were not removed to diagnose cancer or stage the disease, and they were not removed during the initial treatment. Please see SEER manual for instructions for coding Regional Lymph Node Surgery.

 2008
20031113 Primary site/Surgery of Primary Site/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for this type of primary site when a tumor excision and lymph node dissection is performed? See Description. Patient had a left parotidectomy w/ neck dissection in 02/2003. Findings showed a 10x5cm neck mass over the angle of the mandible as well as a 1.5 cm level 4 mass. Path showed invasive mod diff squamous cell ca. with posterior soft tissue margin positive for tumor; small portion of salivary gland had no tumor. Metastatic SCCa in 5 of 34 lymph nodes of neck dissection; no tumor in parotid lymph nodes. Pathology report says this could be a parotid carcinoma because the bulk of the disease is in the parotid, but it could also be metastatic...correlate with clinical findings. Doctor calls this unknown primary of the head and neck. Is this C80.9 or C76.0?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The data item "Surgery of Primary Site" is intended to record only surgeries of the primary site. If the primary site is unknown or ill-defined, it is impossible to determine whether or not a particular surgery was performed on the primary site. "Surgical Procedure of Other Site" collects much less specific information; however, this is the correct data item to record surgery performed when the primary site is unknown or ill-defined.

For the case example, code the primary site as C76.0 [Head, face or neck, NOS]. Code Surgery of Primary Site as 98 [All unknown and ill-defined disease sites, with or without surgical treatment]. Code Surgical Procedure of Other Site as 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed].

 2003
20041055 Primary Site/Grade, Differentiation, Cell indicator--Lymphoma: Will a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 [B-cell] for a lymphoma coded to primary site C80.9 [unknown] fail edits? See Discussion. Patient had a large mass in chest wall that was excised and found to be large B cell lymphoma. Scans mentioned no involvement of lymph nodes but indicated nodules in the liver thought to be lymphoma as well.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:The combination of a primary site C809 with a Grade, Differentiation code of 6 when used for a lymphoma will not fail SEER edits. Avoid coding primary site to C809 when possible. Code primary site for the example above to C761 [Chest wall, NOS]. The chest wall is the only area of involvement, except for "liver nodules." Liver is an unlikely primary site for lymphoma.

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.

 2004
20091096 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be reported when an in situ diagnosis is followed by an invasive diagnosis in the same breast 1.5 years later? See Discussion. Patient had a core biopsy 1/07 that showed DCIS and PE showed no adenopathy. Patient refused resection, and adjuvant treatment. In 6/08, the pt returned for a modified radical mastectomy which showed infiltrating duct carcinoma and positive lymph nodes. A comment in the Correction Record stated "Per MD, patient did not see any urgency and delayed surgery 1.5 years after diagnosis." The patient did not have any treatment in that time period and there is no statement that there was progression. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract the 6/08 invasive diagnosis as a separate primary according to rule M8. Rule M8 applies whether or not the later diagnosis in this case is progression of disease. 2009
20091060 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head and Neck: How many primaries are to be accessioned for a case in which a second tumor occurs in an area previously involved by direct extension from a prior primary located in an adjacent site? See Discussion. Patient diagnosed in August 2007 with squamous cell carcinoma in the right tonsil. This tumor extended to the base of tongue. Treatment consisted of radiation and chemotherapy. In May 2008, the patient was found to have squamous cell carcinoma of the base of tongue. How many primaries are to be accessioned for this case? Rule M7 states that tumors in sites with ICD-O topography codes that are different at the second or third character are multiple primaries. The topography code for base of tongue differs from that of tonsil. Would rule M7 apply? On the other hand, the base of tongue was involved by the tonsil primary which was diagnosed less than one year before.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

The May 2008 diagnosis is not a new primary. Base of tongue involvement was originally present in August 2007. The May 2008 diagnosis does not represent new tumor. The 2007 rules apply to new tumors only; therefore, the 2007 rules do not apply to this case.

 2009
20110134 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be abstracted, and what rule applies, when the patient has a 1999 diagnosis of Burkitt high grade B-cell lymphoma and was diagnosed in 2011 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion Patient diagnosed in 1999 with Burkitt high-grade B cell lymphoma of the thyroid gland and cervical nodes. The patient was treated with a thyroidectomy and chemotherapy. A 2011 biopsy of the parotid gland is positive for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. The pathologist reviewed the 1999 and 2011 pathology reports and stated this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case should be accessioned as two primaries per Rule M15. Rule M15 instructs one to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14. Code the histology for the 1999 primary to 9687/3 [Burkitt high grade B cell lymphoma] and code primary site to C739 [thyroid.] Code the second primary to 9680/3 [diffuse large B-cell lymphoma] with primary site coded to C079 [parotid gland] per Rule PH24 which instructs one to code the to the when lymphoma is present only in an .

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2011
20061006 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: If an orchiectomy specimen contains non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor and a separate satellite of seminoma, how many tumors should be abstracted and how should the histology field(s) be coded? Pathology: R Orchiectomy: 2.1 cm non-seminomatous mixed germ cell tumor (50% teratoma primarily mature, 50% embryonal CA and yolk sac tumor). Located 3cm from the main tumor is a 2mm satellite pure seminoma.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is a single primary because the first three digits of the ICD-O-3 histology codes are the same, according to Rule 3a on page 11 of the 2004 SEER manual. Code the histology 9065 [Germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. Code 9065 is preferred over the less-specific code of 9061 [Seminoma, NOS].

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
20091102 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. 2009
20130137 Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded for follicular lymphoma, low grade? See Discussion. Pathologists seem to be moving away from identifying follicular B-cell lymphomas as grade 1, grade 2, etc. Instead, the term follicular lymphoma, low grade is being used. Should the histology be coded as follicular lymphoma, NOS even though the Heme DB indicates this code is usually used for death certificate cases?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to 9690/3 [follicular lymphoma, NOS].

Low grade for follicular lymphoma are not listed in the Heme DB or Manual. Because low grade can mean grade 1 or grade 2, default to follicular lymphoma, NOS [9690/3].

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20000277 Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

 2000