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: 05/28/2025 09:05 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
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
20010019

Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: Is the term "plasma cell dyscrasia" a synonym for multiple myeloma?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:

Plasma cell dyscrasia, NOS, is nonreportable. It is not a synonym for multiple myeloma. Plasma cell dyscrasia represents a broad spectrum of disease characterized by plasma cell proliferation that appears inappropriate or uncontrolled. Multiple myeloma is one disease type that falls into that classification. However, there are several other malignant and benign diseases also classified as such because of their immunoglobulin abnormalities. Reportability to SEER regarding a disease classified as a plasma cell dyscrasia is dependent on identifying the specific cell type associated with the disease in the ICD-O-3.

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
20010158 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: Does capsular invasion (code 32) take priority over apex extension (code 34) on prostate primaries? See discussion. On prostatectomy, adenocarcinoma involves left apex and also left mid lobe where it focally invades capsule. Do we code extension to 34 - the highest numerical code, or to 32 to capture the capsular invasion? Do codes 33 and 34 represent a subset of code 31, and would code 32 represent greater tumor involvement?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 32 [Invasion into (but not beyond)prostatic capsule] when there is both capsular and apex invasion of the prostate.

Although numerically lower, code 32 takes precedence over codes 33 [arising in the apex] and 34 [extending to the apex]. Codes 33 and 34 are "subsets" of code 31 [Into prostatic apex/arising in prostatic apex].

 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
20010007 Surgery of Primary Site--Skin: For skin primaries diagnosed 1998-2002, what is the difference between code 40 [Wide excision or re-excision of lesion or minor (local) amputation, NOS] and 50 [Radical excision of a lesion, NOS]? Codes 40 and 50 are not in the scheme for 2003 forward. See history for coding cases diagnosed 1998-2002. 2001
20010097 Histology (Pre-2007): What code is used to represent the histology "adenocarcinoma with abundant mucin production"? See discussion.

If the diagnosis is adenocarcinoma with a mucinous focus, we code as 8140/3. However, when there is abundant mucin production, do we use 8480/3?

See SINQ #20010075: "The tumor must contain at least 50% mucinous, mucin producing, or signet ring to be coded to the specific histology. "

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma] if the diagnosis states "adenoca with abundant mucin production". Assume that the term "abundant" represents a term that implies > 50% of the tumor is mucin producing.

When a pathologist makes a diagnosis of mucin-producing adenocarcinoma, the pathologist has determined that more than 50% of the tumor is mucin-producing, so it is unnecessary for the abstractor/coder to look for additional supporting documentation.

If the pathologist states adenocarcinoma "with mucin production," look for a statement about the percentage or amount of mucin production, such as "abundant" or other wording indicating extensive mucin production. If such a statement or wording is present, code 8481/3 [mucin-producing adenocarcinoma]. If not present, code 8140/3 [adenocarcinoma, 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.

2001
20010050 Chemotherapy--Hematopoietic, NOS: What treatment code is used to represent the drug "Gleevec" being used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia? For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the Chemotherapy field to 02 [Single-agent chemotherapy administered as first course therapy]. It should be classified as a chemotherapy agent, albeit a unique one. Gleevec seems to work the same way many other chemo drugs do. It disrupts cell division for malignant cells containing the BCR-ABL protein only, rather than for normal and abnormal cells together. When the cells can't divide and create a new generation, they simply die. This meets the definition of an antineoplastic chemotherapy agent. 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
20010129 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "duct carcinoma, colloid type"? See discussion. Do we use 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] or 8523/3 [duct carcinoma] mixed with other types of carcinomas?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8480/3 [colloid carcinoma] per Rule 4. The lesion is colloid type of ductal carcinoma, not ductal carcinoma mixed with colloid carcinoma.

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
20010117 Grade, Differentiation--Prostate: Has SEER officially changed the conversion code for Gleason score 7 to poorly differentiated [grade 3]?

For cases diagnosed prior to 2003, there has been no change in SEER standards for converting a Gleason score to a grade. As described in the SEER Program Code Manual, Gleason score 7 is converted to moderately differentiated [grade 2]. ONLY if the pathology report lists moderately poorly differentiated IN ADDITION to the Gleason's score 7, would you code the case as 3.

For cases diagnosed in 2003 and later, please see question number 20031123.

 2001