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: 04/24/2026 11:58 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031017 Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: Does code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions; autopsy only case] or code 1 [ Cancer-directed surgery not recommended] have priority when coding this field for extensive tumors not surgically treated because of existing comorbidities? See discussion.

Example:

Patient has Stage IVA carcinoma of the tongue. The physician states that patient is not felt to be a good surgical candidate secondary to multiple medical frailties. Patient is treated with beam radiation.

In this case, how do we code Reason for No Site Specific Surgery? Do we use code 2 because surgery was contraindicated due to co-existing medical conditions or do we use code 1 because the tumor is very extensive and surgery would probably not be done anyway?

SEER has not established a priority for assigning the Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site codes. Assign the code which best describes the reason surgery was not performed.

Example: Assign code 2, Contraindicated due to patient risk factors. According to the physician, this is the reason that surgery was not performed.

 2003
20031050 Radiation Sequence with Surgery: How is this field coded when radiation was recommended but it is unknown whether radiation was ever given? Assign code 0 [No radiation and/or cancer-directed surgery]. Code Radiation Sequence with Surgery as 0 when radiation is coded 8. 2003
20031080 Behavior Code/EOD-Extension--Bladder: How are these fields coded for a bladder tumor in which the pathologist states, "there is no definite invasion identified" but the urologist states the case as T1? See Description.

Patient presents with four bladder tumors, described as "each measuring close to 2 cm." A specimen was taken of only one of the tumors. The tops of the tumors were fulgurated, then vaporized methodically. No obvious tumor or residual was noted on re-inspection.

Pathology revealed papillary urothelial carcinoma, high grade, with no definite invasion identified. Small segments of muscularis propria were present. A comment read..."it is difficult to determine if lamina propria invasion is present due to marked necrosis and tissue fragmentation." Urologist staged this as AJCC cT2a, but based on the pathology findings changed it to cT1. The urologist insists this is invasive.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Because of the damage to the specimen from cautery and the insistence of the urologist that the tumor was invasive, code extension for this case to 15 based on the physician's TNM category of T1.

A T1 is invasive--code the behavior /3. The urologist is confident it is invasive, and will likely treat the patient accordingly.

 2003
20031073 EOD-Pathology Extension--Prostate: Is extracapsular extension implied by the phrase, "involvement of periurethral or urethral margins"? See Description. The prostatectomy final pathology diagnosis states that the tumor involves the periurethral margin. The microscopic describes involvement of the urethral margin. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field in the 20-34 range, which implies no extension beyond the prostate. Disregard involvement of periurethral margin or urethral margin, NOS, unless the pathologist or surgeon specifically mentions "extraprostatic urethra" involvement. 2003
20031015 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: How is the following guideline of "any mention of lymph nodes is considered indicative of involvement" applied for EOD-Extension of lymphoma cases when there is a discrepancy between physicians as to the stage at diagnosis? See discussion. A biopsy of mesenteric nodes confirmed lymphoma. A bone marrow biopsy was negative. A CT of the chest indicates "small mediastinal and bilateral hilar nodes, but without convincing adenopathy." The case was Stage 2 per the oncologist and Stage 3 per the surgeon's TNM form.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Based on the information provided for this example, the lymphoma involves one site, mesenteric nodes. Code EOD extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region].

The statement "For lymphomas, any mention of lymph nodes is indicative of involvement" refers to the terms in the paragraph above it on page 8 of the EOD manual: Palpable, enlarged, visible swelling, shotty, lymphadenopathy. While these terms are ignored for other malignancies, they should not be ignored for lymphomas. None of these terms apply to the example provided here. According to the CT, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are "small" "without convincing adenopathy." In other words, the mediastinal and hilar nodes are negative.

 2003
20031006 EOD/Surgery of Primary Site--Melanoma: If a melanoma primary site is other than skin, vulva, penis, or scrotum should these fields be coded using melanoma schemes? See discussion. Should a melanoma of the cervix be coded using the melanoma or the cervix schemes for these fields? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Use the EOD and surgery code schemes for cervix uteri. The EOD scheme for melanoma excludes melanoma of the cervix uteri. The surgery code scheme for skin excludes cervix uteri. 2003
20031005 Histology (Pre-2007): Do the terms "keratinizing" or "non-keratinizing" have to be present in the final diagnosis to use codes 8071 through 8073? See discussion. Should "squamous cell carcinoma, small cell variant" be coded to 8073 even though the final diagnoses does not include the phrase "non-keratinizing?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

It is acceptable to assign code 8073/3 for squamous cell carcinoma, small cell, NOS. Code squamous cell carcinoma, large cell, NOS to 8072/3. Code to non-keratinizing unless the pathology report specifies keratinizing.

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.

 2003
20031112

Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for a markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm diagnosed by a fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area? See Description.

The diagnosis was made in Oct. 2002 by a CT guided fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area. The cytology report says:

a. positive for malignant cells, markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm.

b. It is impossible to tell from this aspiration biopsy whether or not this represents a high grade sarcoma or a high grade carcinoma, but our consensus opinion is that this lesion is a high grade carcinoma.

The combination of soft tissue topography and carcinoma morphology is Impossible by SEER edits. How should we code this?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the site to C76.3 [Pelvis, NOS]. Code the histology to 8010/34 [Carcinoma, NOS, high grade].

Unless there is better information available regarding the site, assign C76.3. The information provided above does not indicate the exact site of the mass.

Code the histology based on the consensus opinion stated above.

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.

 2003
20031171 Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.

The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.

 2003
20031103

Reportability--Ovary: Is a Stage IIIC serous borderline tumor (micropapillary type) of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 reportable?

Serous borderline tumor of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 is not reportable to SEER. The behavior code is /1 in ICD-O-3. The high stage does not make this borderline tumor reportable. 2003