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: 10/18/2025 09:07 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021208 Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery: Could you explain why this field would be coded to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] or 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] for a case that presents with distant metastasis at diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2002:

Code the Reason for No Cancer-Directed Surgery field to 1 [Cancer-directed surgery was not recommended] for patients who present with either a primary site or histology for which surgery is not a standard treatment. Also use code 1 for those patients who present with distant disease for a primary site that is typically treated surgically. Patients with distant metastasis typically do not have surgery performed as part of first course of treatment.

Code 2 [Contraindicated due to other conditions] is used when surgery would normally be recommended for the site (given the current stage of the tumor) but other medical conditions pose too much of a risk for the patient to undergo surgery.

 2002
20031028

EOD-Lymph Nodes--Head & Neck: If a pre-treatment description of a chain of lymph nodes doesn't meet the criteria for involvement but the post-treatment description of the same chain of lymph nodes does, should those nodes be counted as involved in coding EOD? See Description.

(Primary site = larynx)

9/12/02 CT neck showed right cervical chain adenopathy. After chemotherapy, an 11/18/02 CT soft tissue of neck showed decrease in size by 50% of what was probably necrotic metastatic node to right mandibular angle.

The term "lymphadenopathy" should be ignored when determining involvement of lymph nodes per SEER. In this case, a probable necrotic metastatic node is mentioned in a subsequent CT taken after treatment.

Should lymph node involvement be coded to 9 based on the 9/12/02 CT or coded to 4 because of the mention of a decrease in size of what was probably a metatastic node on the 11/18/03 CT?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code EOD using the best information available. In this example, the post-treatment description of lymph nodes. A post-treatment description of lymph nodes can be used to code lymph node involvement in the absence of disease progression. Pre-operative treatment does not affect lymph node involvement.

Case example: Code lymph nodes as involved (codes 1-4 depending on size and number) based on the later CT report.

 2003
20021094 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Testis: If the patient received chemo, should "bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy" be coded as involved lymph nodes in the EOD lymph node involvement field for a testicular primary treated with an orchiectomy that rendered a path diagnosis of "seminoma confined to the testicle"? See discussion. Per an orchiectomy path diagnosis a seminoma was confined to the testicle. The only other workup, other than a scrotal ultrasound, was a staging CT scan that revealed bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy in abdomen and pelvis, as well as mediastinal adenopathy. There was also a peripheral pulmonary nodule. No final clinical diagnosis or stage was provided in the chart. Following the orchiectomy the patient was treated with chemo. Should we also have coded distant site lung involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 9 [unknown] because "adenopathy" is not used to code lymph node involvement. The physician varied from the usual treatment for a localized testicular carcinoma, which is an orchiectomy. The physician proceeded immediately to chemotherapy as further treatment. It is not clear whether the decision to treat with chemo was based on the nodes and/or lung being involved.

Search the record for the physician's opinion regarding distant metastasis. Do not code distant involvement based on a peripheral pulmonary nodule seen on CT without further proof. If no further information is available, code the EOD-Extension field to 99.

 2002
20000493 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: For prostate cancer, can an elevated PSA be used to code metastasis? See discussion.

5/31/98 PE: 30 gm prostate with nodularity, suspicious for CA.

Final diagnosis: Stage D Ca of prostate with mets, NOS

PTA IVP: Normal collecting system

5/11/98 CXR: NED

PSA 86.3 Suggestive of prostate Ca per MD

5/13/98 TURP and bilat. orchiectomy: Plan was to perform orchiectomy as treatment of choice if biopsy was positive. Appears MD feels that the patient has mets, NOS based on the elevated PSA.

5/13/98 TURP Adenocarcinoma, PD

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, do not code the EOD-Clinical Extension field based on elevated PSA alone. If a recognized practitioner states that there is metastasis, then metastasis should be coded.

In this case, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] because it is Stage D. But if you had D1 or D2 staging based on the involvement of lymph nodes, then that involvement would be coded under EOD lymph nodes and not under the clinical extension field.

 2000
20000247 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: If there is residual tumor in the distal urethra on prostatectomy, does that mean there is distal urethral margin involvement? See discussion.

2/98 Prostate bx: Right apex, right mid and right base positive for adenocarcinoma.

6/1/98 Radical retropubic prostatectomy w/ bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Pathology: Residual adenocarcinoma in distal urethra, right lateral sections and posterior lobe. Right apical margin, other margins, seminal vesicles, and 7 pelvic LN negative for malignancy.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For the example above, code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 34 [extending to apex] because most of the right side is involved.

The pathology report says all margins are free. The comment on residual tumor in the urethra, meant the first surgery did not completely remove tumor tissue from the urethra, it does not mean that tissue is at the margin.

 2000
20020030 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: 1) Can we add "Imaging studies" to those EOD schemes that currently do not include this on their priority list for coding size? 2) When an EOD scheme already lists specific types of imaging studies, are we limited to only those types of procedures or can any imaging study be used to code size? See discussion. How do we determine where to add "imaging studies" to the priority listing? Currently the hierarchy differs for primaries that currently include imaging studies on their EOD schemes. For example, on the breast EOD imaging ranks lower than the physical exam while on the thyroid EOD imaging ranks higher than the physical exam.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

1) You may add "Imaging" to the size priority list for all EOD schemes that currently do not include it. Prioritize it just above the physical exam for these sites.

2) You may use the information from any imaging technique to code tumor size, even for those sites such as breast and bladder where specific imaging tests are mentioned.

 2002
20021074 Tumor Markers--Breast: If the ERA/PRA results reported differ for separate breast specimens removed for a single primary, do we code the results as positive or negative?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code both the Tumor Marker 1 and Tumor Marker 2 fields to 1 [positive] when a single primary breast tumor has both positive and negative ERA/PRA receptors.

 2002
20031191 EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: How is this field coded when biopsies of the prostatic apex are positive and the physician clinically stages the case as T1c?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code clinical extension to 33 [arising in the prostatic apex] when a biopsy of the prostatic apex is positive for malignancy, with no further evidence of involvement. If biopsies of both the apex and another site within the prostate (for example right lobe) are positive and there is no mention that the malignancy arose in the apex, code extension to 34 [extending into the prostatic apex].

 2003
20021126 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.

Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.

We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.

We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.

 2002
20000270

EOD-Lymph Nodes--Lung: What code is used to represent this field when the only information is a description of:

1. "hilar mass"

2. "mediastinal mass"

3. "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm" used to describe any of the lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD Lymph Nodes field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code EOD-Lymph Nodes fields as follows for the examples given:

1) 9 [Unknown; not stated] for a "hilar mass"

2) 2 [Mediastinal] for a "mediastinal mass"

3) 2 [Mediastinal] for "enlarged" or "greater than 1 cm," if used to describe any of the named lymph nodes listed under code 2 in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field.

 2000