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: 10/19/2025 13:54 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20000549 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded if radiation to the primary site and/or regional lymph nodes is performed prior to surgery?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields per the information in the pathology report(s). Radiation to the primary site would not affect the status of the lymph node involvement. Radiation to the regional lymph node region may or may not affect the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. However, for these fields code the best information available about the status of the lymph nodes which is reflected in the pathology report(s).

 2000
20000509 EOD-Extension--Small Intestine: How do we interpret a pathology description of "extending through serosa and forming masses in the periserosal tissue" for a jejunum primary?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 55 [Invasion of/through serosa and adjacent connective tissue]. The description states the tumor extended through the serosa into periserosal tissue. The periserosal tissue in this case refers to adjacent connective tissue lying exterior to the intestinal wall and not the (sub)serosal tissue that lies exterior to the muscularis but inferior to the serosa. Analyze each case individually since pathologists are not consistent when using the above terminology.

 2000
20000433 Diagnostic Confirmation: Is it appropriate to code this field to "radiography" confirmation when a CT scan does not actually contain a diagnosis of malignancy, however, the discharge diagnosis in the medical record of "probable malignancy" is likely based on the abnormal CT findings? See discussion.

10/1/02 CT of Chest: 1) Huge (left) suprahilar mass. 2) Moderate volume loss, left lung. Appearance suspicious of LLL collapse. An infiltrate is seen in the aerated upper lobe as well as pleural effusion. 3) Streaky and nodular changes are noted at the right base that may represent possible lymphangetic spread of tumor.

10/23/02 Discharge Dx: Lung mass, probably carcinoma.

 Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 7 [Radiography]. This is appropriate because it was the scan evidence that was used to make the clinical diagnosis. 2000
20000429 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: For breast cancer cases, is code 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)] to be used only when there is no work-up beyond a clinical one? See discussion.

Usually when a mammogram has a malignant diagnosis, the tumor is clinically palpable, but occasionally the tumor is not palpable.

For example, on the mammogram, lesions are identified in the breast. PE--the breasts are palpably normal. Breast biopsies--two ductal carcinomas, no statement of size. Mastectomy--no residual. Should the size be coded to 999 rather than 002?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the case you provided, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 002 [Mammography/xerography diagnosis only with no size given (tumor not clinically palpable)]. A known code in the size field should always take precedence over 999 [Not stated]. Code size from the records in priority order as stated in EOD, from pathology, op report, PE, mammogram, etc. (See EOD for complete instructions.)

Code size as 999 only when there is a clinically palpable lesion with no size stated in the path, PE, or mammogram.

If there is a lesion seen on mammogram that is not clinically palpable, a stated size taken from the path or mammogram would take precedence over code 002; however, if there is no stated size, use code 002 rather than 999.

 2000
20000280 Primary Site--Breast: Is there a hierarchy for coding subsite for breast cases when there is conflicting information in the physical exam, mammogram, operative and pathology reports as to the exact location of the primary? See discussion.

Example: Two mammograms were performed. One report indicates the lesion is at 12:00 and the other indicates it is in the upper central quadrant. However, the pathology report from the modified radical mastectomy specimen indicates the mass is in the UIQ.

According to one of our physicians, when a pathologist has a mastectomy specimen with attached axillary contents, the location of the lesion (subsite) is very accurate.

Code the Primary Site field to C50.2 [upper inner quadrant]. In general, the priority for using information is pathologic, operative, and clinical findings. The pathology report would take precedence in this case.

The 2004 SEER Program Code manual will include the following instructions for determining breast subsite.

Priority Order for Coding Subsites

Use the information from reports in the following priority order to code a subsite when the medical record contains conflicting information:

1 Pathology report

2 Operative report

3 Physical examination

4 Mammogram, ultrasound

If the pathology proves invasive tumor in one subsite and insitu tumor in all other involved subsites, code to the subsite involved with invasive tumor.

 2000
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
20000483 EOD-Extension--Corpus Uteri: What code is used to represent this field for a corpus primary (sounding 8 cm or less in length) treated with radiation prior to a hysterectomy that pathologically showed superficial myometrial invasion? Is it possible that the invasion could have been more extensive prior to the radiation treatment?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 12 [Myometrium, inner half] which represents the extension you know. In this particular case, there was no clinical evidence of extension outside the corpus. As long as the surgery was not performed because of disease progression, use information from the surgery to code EOD extension.

 2000
20000248 Date of Diagnosis: When doing follow-back at nursing homes on DCO cases, we find it difficult to code diagnosis date because the nursing home records are often vague or incomplete. Should the diagnosis date be coded as unknown (excluded from SEER database), the date of death, or the approximate date of diagnosis as reported on the death certificate?

If the nursing home record indicates that the patient had cancer, use the best approximation for date of diagnosis.

If the record says the patient had cancer when admitted, but it does not provide a date of diagnosis, use the date of admission as the date of diagnosis.

If there is no mention of cancer in the nursing home record and/or all work-up in the record is negative, assume the cancer was discovered at autopsy. Use the date of death as the date of diagnosis, and leave as a Death Certificate Only case.

 2000
20000843 Place of Birth: When there is conflicting information, which record takes precedence in coding this field, the medical record or the death certificate? If there is a discrepancy, use the information from the medical record to code the Place of Birth field. The information from the medical record is provided by the patient, the information on the death certificate is provided by others. If the medical record does not contain birth information, use the information from the death certificate. 2000
20000478 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: When a breast cancer is treated with less than a total mastectomy and more than 2 months later a tumor of the same histology is diagnosed in the same breast with no statement of "recurrence," is this a new primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Count as 2 primaries when a subsequent malignant breast tumor is diagnosed more than 2 months later unless stated to be a recurrence. For cases diagnosed after 1/1/94, an in situ followed by an invasive breast cancer is counted as two primaries even if stated to be a recurrence.

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.

 2000