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: 04/30/2026 15:32 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031146 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." 2003
20031194

Terms of involvement--Lung: Is "intense uptake" described on a PET scan an indication of involvement? See Description.

We are seeing increasing use of PET scans as diagnostic tools for cancer. PET scans use different terminology than the ambiguous terms listed in the EOD manual. Could we please have guidelines for interpreting PET scans?

Example: Patient with right lung cancer. PET scan showed intense uptake in the mediastinum and in the hilum. Can we code "intense uptake" as involvement of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes?

 Do not interpret "intense uptake" as involvement. Look for a statement of involvement or other terminology, such as "highly suspicious," "strongly suspicious for" malignancy, involvement, etc. 2003
20031103

Reportability--Ovary: Is a Stage IIIC serous borderline tumor (micropapillary type) of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 reportable?

Serous borderline tumor of the ovary diagnosed in 2003 is not reportable to SEER. The behavior code is /1 in ICD-O-3. The high stage does not make this borderline tumor reportable. 2003
20041083 CS Lymph Nodes/CS Reg Nodes Eval -- Rectum: If the rectal tumor is not treated with a resection but on endoscopic ultrasound the patient is stated to have a lymph node above the primary tumor and the physician stages the case clinically as N1, should the CS Lymph Nodes field be coded to 30 [Regional lymph node(s), NOS] or 10[Rectal, NOS]? Should the evaluation field be coded to 0 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on other non-invasive clinical evidence] or 1 [No lymph nodes removed. Evidence based on endoscopic examination.]? See Discussion.

Rectal primary:

5/04 sigmoidoscopy w/bx of rectal mass: adenocarcinoma. 6/04 Endoscopic ultrasound of rectal mass: invasion through wall but no definite invasion of prostate or seminal vesicles; 7.5mm lymph node located above tumor, no other enlarged lymph nodes detected. Patient did not have surgery. Physician staged lymph node involvement to clinical N1.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Assign CS Lymph Nodes code 10 [Regional lymph nodes] based on the physician's N1. Assign code 10 because it is the lowest numerical CS code that corresponds to N1 in the scheme for rectum. Use the physician's assignment of TNM when the information in the medical record is incomplete or ambiguous. Code CS Reg Nodes Eval field 0 [No lymph nodes removed] for the case described above because there is no indication that N1 was assigned based on the endoscopic exam. The NI may be based solely on TNM documentation provided by the clinician and you do not know what the clinician used as the basis for the staging.

 2004
20041042 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Histology (Pre-2007)--Kidney: How many primaries, with what histology(ies) should be coded when nephrectomy pathology specimen shows separate tumors of "renal cell carcinoma [clear cell type]" and "renal cell carcinoma [granular cell type]"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract two primaries. This is an example of two tumors with different histologic types in the same site. The right kidney has two separate tumors.

8310/3 [renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type)]

8320/3 [renal cell carcinoma (granular cell type)]

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.

 2004
20041039 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Kidney/Bladder/Renal Pelvis: Would transitional cell carcinoma of the left renal pelvis, diagnosed two years after a diagnosis of invasive bladder cancer, be a second primary when the discharge is "recurrent transitional cell carcinoma, left kidney"?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

This is an example of the term "recurrent" being used loosely to refer to another primary in the urinary tract. It is highly unlikely that a bladder tumor would metastasize to the kidney. Much more likely is the field defect or regional breakdown of the urothelial tissue that lines the tract from the renal pelvis to the urethra. Furthermore, bladder tumors don't spread retrograde to the kidney. Code as two primaries.

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.

 2004
20041020 EOD-Extension--Sarcoma: How is this field coded for a soft tissue sarcoma that involves the overlying skin? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: It depends on the location of the soft tissue sarcoma. If the tumor is very superficial, code EOD-Extension to 60 [Adjacent organs/structures]. However, if the soft tissue sarcoma is between muscles or "deep" according to the AJCC definition, then it would have to grow through the superficial fascia to get to the skin. In this case code EOD-Extension to 80 [Further contiguous extension]. 2004
20041033

Histology--Hematopoietic, NOS: When the histology is described in both WHO and FAB terms, which terminology has priority to code this field? See Discussion.

Example: Bone marrow biopsy was reported as: "Markedly hypercellular marrow aspirate with myelodysplastic alterations morphologically consistent with refractory anemia (FAB) or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (WHO)."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Give preference to the WHO terminology when both are used in the final pathology diagnosis. The WHO classification of tumors is the current standard and is recommended by the College of American Pathologists.

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.

 2004
20041084

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Vulva/Vagina: In 2004 if multiple biopsies reveal VAIN III of the vaginal wall, and VIN III of the left fourchette and the right labia minora is this one primary per the SEER Site Grouping Table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual because vulva and vagina are supposed to be abstracted as a single site?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Abstract the case above as one primary according to multiple primary rule 3a. Code the primary site to C579 [Female genital, NOS] according to the table on page 9 of the 2004 SEER Manual.

Multiple tumors of the same site and same histology diagnosed at the same time are abstracted as one primary. Multiple independent tumors of the vulva and vagina are abstracted as a single site when diagnosed simultaneously. VAIN III and VIN III have the same histology code [8077].

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.

 2004
20041060

Reportability/Behavior Code--Melanoma: If a dermatologist states a "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" is melanoma in situ, is it reportable to SEER?

For this case only, it is reportable to SEER because the physician states that it is "melanoma in situ."

The phrase "proliferation of atypical melanocytes confined to epidermis" alone is not reportable to SEER. This phrase means that there are a number of (proliferation) pigmented cells (melanocytes) not showing the normal cell structure (atypical).

 2004