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: 02/18/2026 22:37 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20000454

First Course Treatment: If the patient receives no treatment at the time of diagnosis (either because it is not recommended or because the patient refused treatment at that time) but treatment is later instituted after disease progression, should this treatment be coded as part of the first course of treatment?

The SEER rules changed in 1998 regarding what constitutes First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy.

For cases diagnosed on or after 1/1/98: The First Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy fields will all be coded to 0 [None] for these types of cases. The documented disease progression would stop the timeframe for inclusion of any treatment to be part of first course of therapy.

 2000
20081054

First course treatment: Is subsequent treatment with R-ICE first course or second course therapy if the patient underwent ABVD x2 cycles and subsequent imaging showed no response to treatment and evidence of progression [new adenopathy] for a lymphoma case? See Discussion.

Patient was initially diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Nodular Sclerosing on 3/3/06.

Patient received ABVD x 2 cycles. Had disease reassessed in May, 2006, no response to treatment, showed evidence of progression (new adenopathy). Patient's pathology from 3/06 was sent for consult: Diagnosis was Hodgkin with some overlapping features of B-cell Non Hodgkin Lymphoma. Treated 5/18/06 with R-ICE FOR NHL.

The R-ICE treatment in this case is not part of the first course. Documentation of treatment failure and/or disease progression signifies the end of the first course of treatment.

 2008
20170077

First Course Treatment: Should the definition in the 2016 SEER Coding Manual be revised for first course of treatment following disease progression for patients who complete the initial first course treatment plan without alteration but had one or more treatment modalities given after disease progression was identified? See Discussion.

The FORDS Manual (pg. 22) states: The first course of treatment includes all methods of treatment recorded in the treatment plan and administered to the patient before disease progression or recurrence. The instructions in the FORDS Manual and clarification from multiple CAnswer Forum posts indicates the planned first course treatment stops following disease progression, even when the first course treatment plan is not altered or changed.

SEER, on the other hand, instructs registrars to do the opposite. The SEER Manual instructs registrars to code all completed treatment given as part of the initial first course treatment plan, even after disease progression, provided the treatment plan is not changed or altered. (See 2016 SEER Manual, Section VII First Course of Therapy, Treatment Timing, Rule 1 and Example 1.)

For consistency in data collection, shouldnt the standard setters use the same guidelines to define first course treatment? Given that the majority of cases are reported to SEER by registrars in CoC facilities, who may not be abstracting treatment modalities that occur after progression, the SEER expectation is likely not able to be performed consistently. Wont this difference in standard setter data collection expectations negatively impact the treatment data reflected on our files?

The example cited above will not be included in the 2018 edition of the SEER manual. Removing this example will improve the consistency in recording first course of treatment for cases diagnosed 2018 and later.

 2017
20140066

First course treatment: When a patient has a Haplo bone marrow transplant, is this coded as an allogenic bone marrow transplant since part of his marrow was used in addition to a donor?

Use code 12 in the Hematologic Transplant & Endocrine Procedures data field. Per the NCI, this procedure is an allogeneic transplant.

Rather than wiping out a patient’s immune system before transplanting donor bone marrow, doctors administer just enough chemotherapy to suppress the immune system, which keeps patients from rejecting the donated marrow without harming their organs. The procedure requires just a half-match, meaning that a patient’s parents or children could be suitable donors. AKA: Half-match transplants.

2014
20160079

First course treatment/Chemotherapy: Is metronomic chemotherapy coded as chemotherapy?

Code metronomic chemotherapy as chemotherapy. Metronomic chemotherapy, also referred to as low-dose metronomic (LDM) chemotherapy, is an emerging cancer treatment approach which administers relatively low doses of traditional chemotherapy drugs over a long period of time and without ‘breaks’ in treatment. By using lower doses this method of treatment minimizes the side effects of traditional chemotherapy.

2016
20031088

First-Course of Cancer-Directed Therapy Fields/Hematopoietic, NOS: How do you code treatment for a myelodysplastic syndrome when a patient is admitted to receive a "second transfusion 7 months after diagnosis"?

The first course of treatment for these hematopoietic primaries lasts until there is a treatment change. For the case you cite the second transfusion (7 months after diagnosis) would be first course treatment. Code the Other Cancer-Directed Therapy Field to 1 [Other cancer-directed therapy].

 2003
20010033

Grade, Differentiation--Breast:

1) If Van Nuys nuclear grade 2 is the only grade given for an in situ breast primary, would it be coded as a 3-component system (e.g., 2/3 = 3)?

2) Is there a way of determining grade if only the total Van Nuys Prognostic index score is given (e.g., score 7/9)?

1. Code Van Nuys grade 2 as code 2 [Grade 2] in the Grade, Differentiation field.

2. Code Van Nuys score of 7 as 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field.

Currently, there is no conversion from the total Van Nuys score to grade because "grade" represents only one of the three Van Nuys factors that make up the total score. The other factors are tumor size and margin. The grade represents from 1 to 3 points within the total Van Nuys score. The total score can be between 3 and 9.

 2001
20020059

Grade, Differentiation: Can a FIGO grade be coded in this field or is the FIGO grading system to be used only for EOD/Stage coding?

This answer pertains to cases prior to 2014. For cases diagnosed 2014 and forward, see http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/grade/

Do not use FIGO grade to code differentiation.

FIGO grade is something completely different from FIGO stage. FIGO stage is used to code EOD. FIGO grade is based on the percentage of non-squamous (i.e., solid) portions of the tumor and corresponds roughly to a three grade differentiation system: grade I, well differentiated (=<5% solid component); grade II, moderately differentiated (>5 - 50% solid); and grade III, poorly differentiated (> 50% solid). SEER is evaluating whether the ICD-O-3 6th digit differentiation codes (four grade categories) accurately represent the FIGO grade. For the time being, do not code FIGO grade.

For a diagnosis that includes commonly used differentiation term with a FIGO grade, such as "Moderately differentiated, FIGO grade II," disregard the FIGO grade and code the Grade, Differentiation field according to the term "Moderately differentiated."

2002
20170033

Grade--Appendix: What is the code and term to use for the grade/differentiation field for well differentiated, Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET)? See Discussion.

Diagnosis: Fragmented appendix with: Goblet cell carcinoid tumor (typical goblet cell carcinoid): WELL DIFFERENTIATED neuroendocrine tumor; INTERMEDIATE GRADE (GRADE 2 NET). Size 3.5 cm according to surgical pathology report. Tumor infiltrates through appendiceal wall to subserosa. Tumor is present in what appears to be the wall of the appendix near the perforation site or in hemorrhagic tissue on the surface of the appendix. MAXIMUM MITOTIC RATE IS TWO (2) FIGURES PER 10 HIGH POWER fields (2/10hpf). (4/10 hpf according to report).

WD indicates a 3- grade system (code 1 for WD) Intermediate grade indicates a 3- grade system (code grade 3 for intermediate grade), Grade 2 indicates a 2- grade system (code 2 for grade 2). Please advise.

See SINQ 20160023 for NET grade coding instructions. Coding grade for NETs is slightly different from coding grade for other solid tumors.

Since this diagnosis includes "Well differentiated" and "Grade 2," assign grade code 2, the higher grade. According to our expert pathologist consultant, "intermediate" fits best with grade 2.

 2017
20150022

Grade--Bladder: Do you use the grade stated on the pathology report for coding the grade/differentiation field for bladder and renal pelvis field? See discussion.

Please confirm correct coding for grade for papillary urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder/renal pelvis. SEER Manual 2014 and 2015 state: "Do not use these tables to code grade for any other groups including WHO (CNS tumors), WHO/ISUP (bladder, renal pelvis), or FIGO (female gynecologic sites) grades." They also state "In transitional cell carcinoma for bladder, the terminology high grade TCC and low grade TCC are coded in the two-grade system" in the Grade section. These statements are not included in SEER Manuals prior to 2014.

Use the grade stated on the pathology report to code grade/differentiation for bladder and renal pelvis field unless the grade is stated to be WHO/ISUP grade.

2015