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: 02/25/2026 05:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20020044

Terminology/EOD-Extension--Prostate: How does SEER define the prostatic "apex"? See discussion.

Some pathologists define the prostatic apex as including the bottom third of the prostate whereas others regard only the bottom-most portion of the gland to be the apex.

SEER defines the apex as being the bottom-most portion of the gland. Apex means "narrowest part," which in the prostate would be the bottom-most portion of the gland.

 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 2002
20021187

Reportability: When a hospital pathologist sends the slides from an original biopsy to two or more outside reviewers and the reviewers differ on whether or not the case is reportable, is the case SEER reportable? Does the decision to treat the patient have any bearing on whether the case would be reportable?

Typically, the final diagnosis of the reviewing pathologist is the one used to determine whether the case is SEER reportable. If two or more reviewing pathologists disagree as to whether the case should be reportable, determine reportability based on the following priority order:

1) If the patient is treated for cancer, the case is reportable.

2) If the patient is not treated for cancer, use the amended diagnosis on the original pathology report if the hospital pathologist used the reviewing pathologists' opinions in establishing his new diagnosis.

3) If there is not an amended diagnosis for the original hospital pathology report, use the clinician's opinion regarding what the diagnosis is to determine whether the case is reportable.

 2002
20021099 Reportability/Histology (Pre-2007)--Pancreas: Are the following pancreatic tumors with mention of "low grade malignant potential/borderline" reportable to SEER? If so, what histology and behavior codes should be used? See discussion.

1. AFIP diagnosis: Pancreas, tail, resection: Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (mucinous cystic neoplasm) of low grade malignant potential. Comment: There are no reliable histomorphologic features which can separate these neoplasms into benign and malignant tumors, and so we consider them all to be low grade malignant tumors.

2. Whipple resection: Intraductal papillary mucinous tumor of the pancreas with extensive low grade and multifocal high grade ductal dysplasia (so-called borderline tumor and carcinoma in-situ).

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Both tumors are reportable to SEER.

1. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8470/3 [Mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, NOS].

2. Code the Histology and Behavior Code fields to 8453/2 [Intraductal papillary-mucinous carcinoma, non-invasive].

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
20021166 EOD-Extension--Kidney: If a "tumor thrombus" in a renal vein is discontinuous from the primary tumor in the kidney, is it still coded to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS], rather than 85 [Metastasis]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 60 [Tumor thrombus in a renal vein, NOS]. A thrombus can be a bolus of tumor cells within a large vein that may or may not still be connected/contiguous with the primary tumor. However, both a discontinuous and contiguous thrombus are coded to 60.

 2002
20021126 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck (Tonsil): How should the EOD-Extension field be coded for bilateral tonsil involvement? See discussion.

Tonsillectomy and bilateral radical neck dissections were done. The path diagnosis was left and right tonsils: squamous cell carcinoma, bilateral tonsils with negative inked surgical margins of resection. Physical exam and operative findings did not mention any extension beyond the tonsils.

We originally coded the EOD-Extension field to 30 for a bilateral tonsil primary. The case failed the SEER Edit IF41 (Primary Site/Lat/EOD). According to that edit, if laterality is 4 then the EOD-Extension field must not be 00 through 30.

We recoded the EOD-Extension field to 99 in order to comply with the SEER edit.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code EOD extension as 30 [Localized, NOS] and laterality as 4 [Bilateral involvement]. The next update to the SEER edits will allow this combination.

 2002
20020019

Reportability: Are the terms "evolving melanoma in situ" or "evolving melanoma" reportable diagnoses?

According to SEER's melanoma expert, these cases are not reportable because there is no standard definition for the term "evolving" melanoma.

 2002
20021031 Primary Site--Meninges: Should the primary site for a meningioma of the right frontal lobe be coded to C71.1 or C70.0? See discussion. In the opinion of some neurologists it is more important to capture the lobe in which the meningioma is located rather than code the primary site to meninges. Should a meningioma always be coded to meninges for primary site? Code the Primary Site field to C70.0 [cerebral meninges], the suggested site code for most meningiomas. Meningiomas arise from the meninges, not the brain (although they can invade brain). ICD-O-3 does not differentiate the specific location of the brain that the meninges cover. The information of interest to neurologists would have to be captured in an optional or user-defined field. 2002
20021210 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: When there is a delay between the clinical diagnosis of a malignancy and the surgical resection of the primary site, can the resection be used to code the date of diagnosis, extension, size of the primary tumor, and histology? See discussion.

For example, mammogram March 28th states "certainly represents malignancy." Nothing else done until November 1st when pt presents w/skin retraction on PE and bone mets. A mastectomy November 6th shows "ductal ca w/dermal lymphatic invasion and tumor measuring 3.5 cm."

How is the date of diagnosis, extension, tumor size & histology coded for this case?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Date of Diagnosis to March. Code the Histology field to 8500/3 [Infiltrating duct carcinoma]. Histology can be upgraded from a clinical histology to a pathological histology anytime.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in coding extension, you need to assess whether there has been progression of disease or not. If progression of disease is verified, do not code extension using the surgical information from November. Code the extension and tumor size based on the mammogram and physical examination at the time of the mammogram, if available.

If no progression of disease is verified, use surgical information to code extension and tumor size.

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
20021044 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grade, Differentiation: Can histology and/or grade be coded from a metastatic site? See discussion.

Example 1: No pathology specimen is available from the primary site for a lung primary. Rib biopsy demonstrated "anaplastic adenocarcinoma."

Example 2: Lung tissue biopsy revealed "poorly differentiated non-small cell carcinoma" for a lung primary. Pleural effusion cytology was consistent with "adenocarcinoma".

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Example 1: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8140/39 [adenocarcinoma, NOS, grade not stated]. Because there was no microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, the histology may be coded from the microscopic examination of the tissue from a metastatic site. Do not code grade from a metastatic site regardless of whether the involvement of the metastatic site is by direct extension or by discontinuous metastases.

Example 2: Code the Histology and Grade, Differentiation fields to 8046/33 [non-small cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated]. Because there is a microscopic examination of tissue from the primary site, that information should be used to code histology rather than a cytology of a metastatic site.

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