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: 11/23/2025 17:26 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20180019

Marital Status: Is Marital Status always a self-reported status? See Discussion.

The SEER Manual states that Marriage is self-reported for the instruction in code 2, but it does not indicate if all other marital statuses are self-reported.

Examples: How is Marital Status reported for the following situations?

1. Patient with multiple tumors in the database, for the first tumor marital status is reported as married (code 2), for the subsequent tumor, marital status is reported as single (code 1).

2. Patient self- reports as single, but also has children.

3. Patient states they are in common law marriage, but our state is not a common law marriage state.

Marital Status is self-reported because the information is recorded in the medical record based on information obtained from the patient. Use text fields to document relevant information.

Examples

1. Assign code 2 for the first tumor and assign code 1 for the subsequent tumor unless the available information indicates the patient is divorced at the time of the subsequent tumor diagnosis. Patient may self-report single after a divorce. Assign code 4 in that situation.

The code assigned for marital status reflects the patient's marital status at the time of diagnosis for the tumor being abstracted. It is possible that marital status may be different for each tumor if the patient has multiple tumors.

2. If marital status is stated to be single, assign code 1.

3. If marital status is stated to be common law marriage, assign code 2.

Common Law Marriage is defined as a couple living together for a period of time and declaring themselves as married to friends, family, and the community, having never gone through a formal ceremony or obtained a marriage license.

 2018
20180110

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Lung: What is the histology code of a 2018 lung case whose pathology states adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant?

The Solid Tumor Rules for Lung rule H4 applies. Per Table 3, page 12, third column on adenocarcinoma row, adenocarcinoma, acinar predominant is coded to 8551/3.

 2018
20180002

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Is a renal pelvis diagnosed 5/2016 a separate primary when the first invasive bladder was 12/2011? Per rule M7, the 5/2016 renal pelvis is more than 3 years later. Does Multiple Primary/Histology (MP/H) rule M7 refer back to the original diagnosis date or to the last occurrence? See Discussion.

12/30/11 Bladder Biopsy: Diffuse carcinoma in situ of bladder, urothelial cancer at trigone (Stage T1)

1/30/2012 Transurethral resection of the bladder was non-papillary, urothelial carcinoma, focal invasion of lamina propria, staged T1

11/10/14, 9/28/15, 9/26/16, 10/19/17 all had positive bladder cytology of urothelial carcinoma

5/16/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

9/26/16 Left renal pelvis aspirate: positive for malignant cells, urothelial carcinoma

10/18/16-11/7/16 Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) x3 administered into the renal collecting system via ureteral catheter

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018

This case is a single primary. This patient has not had a disease-free interval as demonstrated by the positive cytologies from 2014 through 2017. The MP/H rules cannot be applied in this case.

To answer your question about the timing of rule M7, please see slide 6 in the Beyond the Basics MP/H advanced training, General Instructions, https://seer.cancer.gov/tools/mphrules/training_adv/SEER_MPH_Gen_Instruc_06152007.pdf

 2018
20180038

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries should be reported when a 10/10/2017 skin biopsy identified myeloid sarcoma with monocytic differentiation, clinically stated to be leukemia cutis is followed by an 11/2/2017 BM biopsy showing an evolving high grade myelodysplastic process with atypical monocytes, likely an early evolving acute myeloid leukemia (AML), clinically stated to be a therapy-related AML (9920/3)? See Discussion.

Code 9920/3 is not included under rule M3. However, disease process knowledge would indicate that because the patient has an underlying AML subtype, the leukemia cutis is due to the AML cells that have migrated into the skin tissue. This appears to be a single advanced disease process essentially diagnosed simultaneously.

The leukemia cutis is secondary to leukemia that is already present. This is multiple disease processes going on at the same time. Look for more information on this case. Is there any previous diagnosis of MDS, leukemia, or some other disease that would result in a treatment related AML?

If no further information can be found, abstract one primary with 9920/3.

 2018
20180098

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology: Please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules. See Discussion.

The 2018 Solid Tumor (ST) Rules General Rules state: For those sites/histologies which have recognized biomarkers, the biomarkers frequently identify the histologic type. Currently there are clinical trials being conducted to determine whether these biomarkers can be used to identify multiple primaries. Follow the Multiple Primary Rules; do not code multiple primaries based on biomarkers.

Additionally, Biomarkers is at the top of the priority order to identify histology in several sections (it appears to be excluded from only Colon, Melanoma and Other sections). In the sections that include this rule, there is not much additional information on using biomarkers. Can you please provide further explanation for prioritizing biomarkers in the histology coding rules? For example, will the ST manual be updated when we need to look for specific biomarkers in a diagnosis?

Instructions for biomarkers will be added to other site rules when applicable. The use of biomarkers to determine a specific histologic type is not yet a standard of care in the majority of cases.

 2018
20180079

Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries should be abstracted when papillary carcinoma is identified in two biopsies and a subsequent lumpectomy identified invasive ductal carcinoma with multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)? See Discussion.

The right breast ultrasound shows a 1.4 cm mass at 8 o'clock and a separate mass .6 cm at 7 o'clock (site code for both C50.5). Pathology report: Right 8 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2), right 7 o'clock core needle biopsy fragments of intracystic noninvasive papillary carcinoma (8504/2). Then, another facility performs a right breast lumpectomy (operative note not available). Outside Facility: Right breast lumpectomy pathology shows invasive ductal carcinoma .6cm (8500/3) multifocal DCIS .5cm greatest dimension tumor site right breast NOS.

Should we use Rule M12-Abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are on different rows in Table 3 in the Equivalent Terms and Definitions. Timing is irrelevant. Note: Each row in the table is a distinctly different histology. So would this be two primaries C50.5 (8504/2) and C50.9 (8500/3)?

Abstract as multiple primaries using Breast Solid Tumor Rule M12 as these are separate, non-contiguous tumors on different rows in Table 3.

 2018
20180015

Histology--Ovary: What is the correct ICD-O-3 histology code for sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma of the ovary?

Assign 8380/3. Sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma is a variant of endometrioid carcinoma according to the WHO Classification of Tumors of Female Reproductive Organs, 4th edition. There is no specific ICD-O-3 code for this variant.

 2018
20180016

Primary site--Pancreas: Is the uncinate process of the pancreas coded to C259, C250, or C257?

Assign C250 to the uncinate process of the pancreas. The uncinate process is part of the head of the pancreas.

 2018
20180074

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Brain and CNS: Rule M6 notes a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme is a new primary when it follows a diagnosis of a glial or astrocytic tumor. Does this rule apply if the subsequent diagnosis was just, glioblastoma, NOS or one of the subtypes/variants of glioblastoma multiforme? See Discussion.

Glioblastoma multiforme is listed as a synonym for the preferred term glioblastoma, NOS (9440) per Table 3 Column 2. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS would be a new primary if it followed a glial or astrocytic tumor. However, in general, the Solid Tumor Rules use the preferred terminology and/or indicate when a specific rule also includes any tumor diagnosed as a subtype/variant. Rule M6 does not explicitly include a diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS or any of its subtypes/variants (e.g., glioblastoma IDH-mutant or gliosarcoma). Does Rule M6 apply to any diagnosis of glioblastoma, NOS and any of its synonyms or subtypes/variants?

Apply Malignant Central Nervous System Solid Tumor Rule M6 that refers to glioblastoma multiforme and abstract multiple primaries. If glioblastoma, NOS, an associated synonym with the same histology (9440/3), follows a glial or astrocytic tumor, Rule M6 applies.

With the identification of new variants of glioblastoma based on genetic profiles, we will likely see fewer diagnosis of GBM. M6 applies to cases where the subsequent/new tumor is specifically stated to be GBM, NOS.

 2018
20180064

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Recurrence--Breast: Does any recurrence within the multiple primaries-stated timeframe count, not those just in the primary site? See Discussion.

A patient has a left breast cancer diagnosed in 2011; then has a "recurrence" in her lymph nodes in 2017. In 2018, she has a new left breast mass that is the same histology and behavior as the 2011 cancer. Based on the 2017 "recurrence" in the lymph nodes, this is not a new breast primary, is that correct?

This is a single primary using 2018 Breast Solid Tumor Rule M11. Rule M8 does not apply because the patient was not clinically disease free for 5 years. We are interpreting the 2017 diagnosis as lymph node metastasis from the 2011 breast cancer diagnosis.

 2018