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: 09/10/2025 04:35 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 2002
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
20021137 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Soft Tissue: Does SEER agree that one primary of the soft tissues of pelvis [C49.5] should be reported when a pathologic diagnosis for bilateral herniorrhaphies is "right and left inguinal hernias with low grade spindle cell sarcoma"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. This is one primary and should be coded to C49.5 [Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissue of pelvis]. According to Rule A in ICD-O-3, the type of tumor ("sarcoma") indicates origin from a particular tissue, resulting in the primary site code of C49.5 [Inguinal region, NOS] for this sarcoma.

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.

 2002
20021122 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a path diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type with apocrine features, does the term "apocrine" modify the term cribriform or does it represent another type of ductal carcinoma in situ? See discussion. It can be difficult to determine if two terms mentioned in a pathology report are describing different aspects of the same morphology or if the two terms are describing two different morphologies.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8401/2 [Apocrine carcinoma in situ]. According to our pathologist consultant "Because apocrine is the more unusual tumor, and pulling it out of the cribriform category keeps the latter a little cleaner (because most cribriform ductal carcinoma in situ is not particularly apocrine), I am inclined to code to the histology to apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ."

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.

 2002
20021051 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: Can you explain the difference between code 10 [confined to pancreas] and code 30 [Localized, NOS]. See discussion. For example, a CT scan mentions no extension beyond the head, body or tail of the pancreas and there is no surgical resection. Should we code extension to 10 or 30?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 10 [confined to pancreas] because a scan supported the finding of no extension beyond the pancreas.

If the abstractor reviewing the medical record has scans, op reports, and/or pathology reports stating that the tumor is confined to the pancreas, code extension to 10 [confined to pancreas].

However, if the medical record only provides a patient history from a physician stating that the patient had localized pancreas, code extension to 30 [localized, NOS]. The NOS codes are used only when there is not enough information to code the specific codes (in this case, 10 or 20).

 2002
20021149 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: In the absence of a clear surgical or pathologic description of how the salivary gland involvement relates to the head and neck primary, do we code the involvement as direct extension, further extension or metastasis? See discussion. A composite resection of tonsillar mass and a modified radical neck dissection is performed. According to the pathology report: Squamous cell carcinoma involvement of tonsil with invasion of skeletal muscle. A separate specimen labeled "tumor" indicates a salivary gland is also involved with tumor. Neck dissection: 1 lymph node with metastasis.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In the absence of a clear statement that the gland was involved by direct extension, code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis]. In this case, the salivary gland tumor was described as a "separate specimen" that contained the salivary gland. The extension does not appear to be contiguous for this case.

If the salivary gland involvement had been by direct extension, which would be assumed if there had been contiguous involvement of the gland with the primary site, then code the EOD-Extension field to 80 [Further extension]. If there had been direct extension, the surgeon probably would not have dissected through the tumor. The resection specimens would have been contiguous.

 2002
20021175 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology if the final diagnosis between an electron microscopy report and the immunocytochemistry (ICC) differs and both histologies are specific (e.g., one report states papillary carcinoma and the other states squamous cell carcinoma)?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

There is no established hierarchy between electron microscopy and ICC findings. Contact the pathologists involved in these types of cases to determine the final histologic diagnosis.

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.

 2002
20021179 Primary Site/EOD Fields--Head & Neck: In the absence of an actual resection and a pathologic evaluation of the affected area, would a laryngoscopy or CT scan provide a better assessment of the EOD and the primary site?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For Primary Site and EOD, CT information has higher priority than laryngoscopy. The CT scan gives a better picture of the involvement of the deeper tissues. A laryngoscopy falls into the "physical exam" category more than the "operative" category. The laryngoscopy report is not an "operative" report like those generated from a surgical procedure.

 2002
20021063 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined: What code is used to represent this field when a path report from a lymph node biopsy or dissection describes lymph node "portions" or "fragments"? See discussion.

1) Lymph nodes, right pelvic dissection: No evidence of malignancy in 4 portions of lymph node examined. (Should we code the number examined as 01, 04, or 97?)

2) Lymph nodes, left pelvic dissection: 5 fragments of lymph nodes show no evidence of malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 05 or 97?)

3) Biopsy of right neck mass: Malignancy in fragments of lymph nodes. The following month, pt had a right modified lymph node dissection: 16/32 lymph nodes are positive for malignancy. (Should we code the number examined as 32, 33, 97, 98?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The total number of lymph nodes examined is recorded in EOD-Num of Reg LN Examined. If the number of actual lymph nodes represented by the "fragments" or "portions" cannot be determined, assign code 96, 97, or 98 as appropriate.

1) Based on the terminology "four portions of lymph node (singular)" code to 01 despite "dissection" terminology.

2) Code to 97 based on "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" terminology and procedure identified as dissection.

3) Code to 97 based on statement of "fragments of lymph nodes (pleural)" for biopsy plus dissection.

 2002
20021174 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: When the original pathology reports diagnosis indicates a grade and the review of slides (ROS) pathology report does not give a grade, can you code the histologic type from the ROS and the grade from the original pathology report? See discussion. For example, if the original diagnosis is "poorly differentiated carcinoma" and the ROS diagnosis is "squamous cell carcinoma," would the morphology code be 8070/33?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8070/33 [poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma]. Code the higher grade when different grades are specified for the same specimen and code the more specific morphology (i.e., squamous cell carcinoma rather than carcinoma, NOS).

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.

 2002