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: 04/28/2026 22:36 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20010168

Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated, with sarcomatoid features"? See discussion.

Is the case more accurately coded with histology of adenosarcoma [8933/34] or adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated [8140/34]? Should "sarcomatoid" be interpreted as sarcoma?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8140/34 [adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated]. Sarcomatoid means sarcoma-like and should not be used in coding histology.

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.

 2001
20010156 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Breast: Patient diagnosed with two lumps in same breast, different quadrants at same time. One was ductal carcinoma, cribriform type; the other was ductal carcinoma. How many primaries do we code? See discussion. If the breast cancer had been diagnosed in 2000 we would have coded this case as one primary, code to higher ductal ca. For a 2001 or later diagnosis, should this be coded as two primaries?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code this case as two primaries if the tumors are separate. Separate tumors have clear (negative) margins. If the tumors are not separate, code as one primary.

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.

 2001
20010092 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined: What codes is used to represent these fields when the surgeon states that a "lymph node dissection" was done, but no nodes are identified in the pathology report?

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery field to 3 [Number of regional lymph nodes removed unknown or not stated; regional lymph nodes removed, NOS] and code the EOD-Number of Regional Nodes Examined field to 00 [No nodes examined].

The surgery fields reflect the procedures the physician performed. The EOD fields reflect the results of those procedures.

 2001
20010167 EOD Fields--Lymphoma: Was MALT Lymphoma [9715/3 (ICD-O-2) and 9699/3 (ICD-O-3)] inadvertently excluded from SEER EOD manual, top of page 180?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes. Use the scheme on page 180 for MALT lymphoma. The ICD-O-2 morphology code 9715 was omitted in error. It should have been added when the EOD was printed in 1998.

 2001
20010022 Grade, Differentiation--Bladder: Some pathologists use a two component grade system for bladder carcinomas - either low grade or high grade. Should we continue to code these per SEER rules as grades 2 [low grade] and 4 [high grade]? See discussion. The AFIP website states that this low grade classification corresponds to grade 1/3, while the high grade corresponds to both grade 2/3 and grade 3/3. Using the 3-grade conversion, this would also classify the low grade as grade 2, but would leave the high grade as a toss-up between grade 3 and grade 4. Continue to code Grade, Differentiation as specified in the SEER Program Code Manual: "Low grade" is coded to 2 and "high grade" is coded to 4. 2001
20010116 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion. Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, "a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.

 2001
20010101 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How do you code extension when a mass is described on exploratory laparotomy as compressing the duodenum, arising in the head of the pancreas, "extending around" the superior mesenteric vein and artery, and "encasing" the portahepatis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [extension to peripancreatic tissue, NOS]. Neither of the terms "extending around" nor "encasing" are interpreted as involvement with tumor by SEER.

 2001
20010128 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder/Prostatic Urethra: When invasive TCC of the bladder and TCC in-situ of the prostatic urethra are diagnosed at the same time, are they reportable as two primaries? See discussion. There is no direct extension of tumor from the bladder to the urethra. According to the SEER rules for determining separate primaries, bladder (C67) and urethra (C68) are separate sites. However, it seems that TCC in the bladder and urethra should be reported as a single primary.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is one primary. Mucosal spread of in situ cancer from a hollow organ (bladder) into another hollow organ (prostatic urethra) is coded as a single primary.

This type of mucosal spread of tumor is sometimes referred to as "intramucosal extension" or " in situ component extending to." Mucosal spread can also be expressed as a statement of an invasive component in one organ with adjacent or associated in situ carcinoma in a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

This case represents an invasive bladder tumor with in situ extension to the prostatic urethra. A tumor that is breaking down can be invasive in the center with in situ cancer at its margins. Occasionally, the in situ margin can move into a contiguous organ with the same type of epithelium.

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.

 2001
20010005 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma/Leukemia: What code is used to represent this field for a lymph node biopsy that reveals "well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma" and a bone marrow biopsy that reveals "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/well differentiated lymphocytic lymphoma"?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [Grade 1] for both of these cases because there is no mention of T-cell, B-cell, null cell, or NK cell involvement. Both cases have a pathologic description of well differentiated, not the descriptors "high grade," "low grade," or "intermediate grade" which must be ignored when coding grade for lymphomas.

For lymphomas, you cannot code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field because these terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade. However, you can code terms such as "well differentiated", "moderately differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" for lymphoma histologies.

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.

 2001
20010166

Reportability--Myelodysplastic Syndrome: How we handle cases of myelodysplastic syndromes identified in 2001 casefinding documents that are determined to have an "unknown diagnosis" date after review of the patient's hospital medical record?

Myelodysplastic syndrome cases with unknown dates of diagnosis identified in pre-2001 casefinding documents should not be accessioned and are not SEER reportable.

For cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents, when the diagnosis date cannot be confirmed using the medical records typically accessed by the registrar or central registry staff, do not accession these cases; they are not SEER reportable. This default applies only to those cases identified in 2001 casefinding documents.

For cases identified in 2002 or later casefinding documents, the attending physician should be contacted and asked to clarify the diagnosis date for cases identified with unknown dates of diagnosis. Clarifying the diagnosis date is necessary to determine whether the case is reportable and whether it should be accessioned.

 2001