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: 04/25/2026 23:39 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051023

Reportability/Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Bladder: If a patient has had recurrent invasive bladder cancers since 1971, should the latest recurrence in 2003 be SEER reportable because the case has yet to be reported to SEER?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Because this 2003 recurrent bladder cancer was initially diagnosed prior to 1973, it is not reportable to SEER.

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.

 2005
20051059

Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?

Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.

 2005
20051143 CS Extension--Prostate: Can the EOD Manual clarifications regarding apparent and inapparent tumors be used to determine CS clinical extension for prostate 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.Do not use the EOD information to determine apparent and inapparent when coding Collaborative Stage for tumors diagnosed 1/1/2004 or later.

The August 2007 CoC Flash stated that "After consultation with the AJCC curators for genitourinary disease, the CS Steering Committee has determined that the SEER list of terms for apparent and inapparent in the SEER Extent of Disease Manual is NOT to be used for interpreting reports for Collaborative Staging. While it was a convenient tool for registrars, the curators are of the opinion that the use of the list will lead to misinterpretation of reports. Rather, the curators recommend that registrars rely on a direct physician statement of apparent or inapparent disease for Collaborative Staging."

August 2007 CoC Flash: http://www.facs.org/cancer/cocflash/august07.pdf, Coding Prostate Cancer: A Message from the Collaborative Staging Steering Committee.

 2005
20051021 Primary Site--Breast: If a patient has multifocal tumors all in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, is the primary site coded to C-504 because all of the tumors are in UOQ or would the site be coded to C509 to reflect the fact that multiple tumors exist? Code the primary site to C504 [Upper outer quadrant]. All disease is located in one quadrant, code that quadrant. When disease involves two or more quadrants and the point of origin cannot be determined, code C509 [Breast, NOS]. See 2004 SEER manual, page C-470 for instructions about invasive and in situ in different quadrants. 2005
20051012 Reportability: Are malignant tumors of genital skin reportable? On page 1 of the 2004 SEER Manual, Reportable Diagnoses, 1.b.i. Exceptions: malignant and invasive histologies not required by SEER - Skin. There is no longer a note that states that lesions ARE reportable for skin of the genital sites. Has SEER discontinued the collection of malignant skin tumors of the genital sites OR is the manual in error? The histologies listed in the exception on page 1 are NOT reportable when the topography code is C440-C449. The manual specifically lists the topography codes in 1.b.1. Diagnoses with the listed histologies ARE reportable when the topography code is NOT C440-C449. Genital skin sites are not coded C440-C449 so a note is not needed. 2005
20051100 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is a "myeloproliferative disorder" reportable when the pathology report comment states this likely represents the "early/cellular phase of myelofibrosis/myeloid metaplasia" with cytogenetics and PCR pending?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not yet reportable. The bone marrow diagnosis "myeloproliferative disorder" is not reportable to SEER. It is likely that if this condition progresses, it will eventually be reportable.

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.

 2005
20051072 Primary Site/CS Extension--Lymphoma: Should CS Extension be coded to 22 [Involvement of spleen PLUS lymph node(s) BELOW the diaphragm] or 32 [Involvement of spleen PLUS lymph node(s) on both sides of the diaphragm] for the biopsy proven lymphoma in a retroperitoneal mass and a CT of the chest with nodes described as "indeterminate" or "calcified"? See Discussion.

It was diagnosed on CT-guided biopsy of retroperitoneal mass: obtained access to the posterior aspect of the lesion adjacent to the left side of the spinal column at approx the level of the kidney.

CT Abdomen/Pelvis: Large low attenuation & smooth walled regions in hilum of the spleen & into the splenic parenchyma w/assoc smaller lesions in the spleen. Associated adenopathy on left side of aorta between the superior mesenteric artery & renal vein.

Body of report: Soft tissue mass 4.4 x 4.8 x 7cm adjacent to the left side of the aorta & spanning the distance betw superior mesenteric vein inferiorly to level of left renal vein, appears to be matted adenopathy.

CT Chest: indeterminate nodes in pretracheal region w/calcified nodes in infracarinal region, right perihilar region & calcifications in pulmonary parenchyma of right lung. Calcified nodes & other structures suggest healed granulomatous process. However, with the infarct/mass lesion in the spleen & left periaortic adenopathy, extension of this process to the mediastinum can't be excluded.

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 primary site C772 [Intra-abdominal lymph nodes]. Assign CS extension code 22 [Involvement of spleen plus lymph nodes below diaphragm]. The description from the chest CT is not sufficient to code lymph node involvement above the diaphragm.

 2005
20051064 Cancer-Directed Treatment/Surgery of Primary Site--Anus: Is "infrared coagulation" coded as surgery or "other" treatment for anal canal primaries? Do not code infrared coagulation -- it is not treatment for cancer. 2005
20051145

CS Extension/CS Mets at Dx--Colon: How is a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa coded for a sigmoid primary? See Discussion.

Path final diagnosis states: "No lymph node metastases identified. One submucosal met in a block taken from a surgical margin section." Path micro states: "Microscopic involvement of the border between the serosa and muscularis propria. Sections of proximal & distal surgical margins reveal no tumor in one, and a small focus of metastatic disease in the submucosa of the other. This focus of tumor exists in a small vascular channel and is complete in and of itself; ie, it has not been cut thru by excision of the specimen from the patient."

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.

This submucosal metastasis does not affect CS extension. It is not part of CS or TNM staging.

According to the TNM supplement, "Multiple tumour foci in the mucosa or submucosa ("skip metastasis") are not part of the TNM classification and should not be classified as distant metastasis.

 2005
20051048 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Cervix: How many primaries should be abstracted if a patient had a diagnosis in 1998 of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated with a total hysterectomy and a July 2004 vaginal mass biopsy with a diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma that is consistent with an endocervical primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the July 2004 diagnosis as a new endocervical primary. Abstract an invasive cancer in the same site more than two months after an in situ cancer as a new primary. Residual cervical tissue is present following a hysterectomy.

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.

 2005