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: 12/21/2025 20:31 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20200011

Race: How should race information from linkages be incorporated into the coding of Race? See Discussion.

Race information is provided in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) linkage results. Oftentimes it matches what is coded in the database, but other times it does not.

In situations where the CMS (or other) linkage provides a race value that differs from the coded Patient set, are we to ignore the CMS stated race given the SEER Manual instructions indicating self-reported race has priority or should we add the different Race values from linkages as an additional race (ex. Race 02)?

Use self-reported race as the priority when information on race is available. Use the associated text field to document why a particular race code was chosen when there are discrepancies in race information. Generally, race information is used from linkages when race data is missing or unknown, or to enhance data.

We will add clarification on linkages in the next SEER Manual update.

 2020
20200073

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Colon: Should the mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) row in Table 1 include the still often used (yet older) terms of adenocarcinoma and carcinoid, adenocarcinoid, etc. for clarity? See Discussion.

The Terms and Definitions Introduction discusses how these are older terms, but pathologists may still use them. In our region, pathologists do, in fact, still use these terms. Can these terms be added to Table 1? For registrars who do not reference the Introduction every time they code histology but go directly to Table 1, coding consistency would likely improve if such terms were added in the Table.

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

The next update to the Solid Tumor rules will include adding the following four terms to Colon Table 1 as synonyms for Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma 8244

  • Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma

  • Combined carcinoid and adenocarcinoma

  • Mixed carcinoid and adenocarcinoma

  • Composite carcinoid

    		•  2020
    		20200023

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Endometrium: Is the histology for a serous carcinoma, high-grade endometrial primary 8441/3 (serous carcinoma) or 8461/3 (high grade serous carcinoma)? See Discussion.

    Path report reads: 7/15/2019 A. Endometrium, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade. B. Endometrial polyp, curettings: Serous carcinoma, high grade.

    If coded to 8461/3, according to AJCC, this would not be an ideal code (since it is outdated). Also, endometrium is not included in the suggested site codes for 8461/3 according to the 8/22/2018 ICD-O-3 update.

    Code histology for this endometrial primary to serous carcinoma 8441/3. Capture "high grade" in the grade field as instructed in the grade coding manual.

    "High grade serous carcinoma" has specific clinical and histopathologic features found in ovarian tumors.

    		 2020
    		20200039

    EOD 2018/Summary Stage 2018--GIST: How should Extent of Disease (EOD) and Summary Stage be coded for a multifocal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)? See Discussion.

    Example: Patient is found to have a 9.4 cm GIST in the jejunum and 2 cm GIST in the stomach during resection, neither stated to be outright malignant. Similar to the instruction in SINQ 20190041, this case is coded as a malignant jejunal primary due to multifocal tumor. However, it is unclear how to account for the stomach tumor, or any other multifocal tumor for GIST, when coding EOD and Summary Stage.

    For this case, report each GIST diagnosis separately. This differs from SINQ 20190041 because in that case the stomach GIST was incidental and measured only 0.3 cm. Reporting these separately means that each one is no longer a multifocal tumor. If there is no other indication of malignancy for these, they would not be reportable if diagnosed in 2020 or earlier.

    For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, all GIST are reportable. Report this as two primaries. Use the new GIST schema for EOD and assign EOD Primary Tumor 100 for each. There is no mention of extension outside the primary site. Summary Stage is Localized for each.

    		 2020
    		20200002

    Reportability/In situ--Prostate: Has there been a change in reportability for prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN III) (C619)? The 2018 SEER Manual notes: Collection stopped effective with cases diagnosed 01/01/2001 and later; however, on the casefinding list effective 10/01/2019, code D07.5, carcinoma in situ of prostate, is listed as reportable.

    PIN III is not reportable in accordance with the 2018 SEER Manual; however, carcinoma in situ of the prostate is reportable as they represent different histology codes. The casefinding list is used to search for reportable cases and is not the same as a reportable list.

    		 2020
    		20200060

    First Course Treatment/Reportability: Are there situations for which a case with a class-of-case code in the 30's should be reported to the central registry? We know these are not reportable to the CoC, but should they be reported to the central registry? See Discussion.

    Example: 3/22/2017-26 year old white female seen in the emergency room with abdominal pain. Patient was diagnosed about a month ago with breast cancer. Impression: menstrual pain. In this example the patient is newly diagnosed with breast cancer, but the second hospital does not treat or diagnose the patient; pain management for a separate condition is received only. Is this patient reported due to the history of active disease?

    Work with your central registry to determine which cases they require you to report. In general, any case still undergoing first course of treatment, even if not given at your facility, should be reported to the central registry. Many central registries will appreciate knowing that the patient was seen at your facility to update date last seen and other data items.

    		 2020
    		20200078

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Histology--Brain and CNS: Should the new malignant term pituitary blastoma be added to Table 3 of the 2018 Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules? See Discussion.

    Pituitary blastoma was not added to Table 3 (Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtypes/Variants) of the 2018 Malignant CNS and Peripheral Nerves Solid Tumor Rules as part of the December 2020 update. This is a new malignant CNS histology for 2021 and later. Not including this histology in Table 3 results in the registrars being required to check another source to correctly code this histology. If this histology cannot be used for cases diagnosed prior to 2021, should that diagnosis year clarification be included in the STR?

    This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

    The Solid Tumor Malignant CNS tables do not list pituitary specific histologies at this time. Registrars will need to refer to ICD-O and/or updates until the decision to add malignant pituitary neoplasms is made. Pituitary blastoma is a rare tumor which occurs in children.

    		 2020
    		20200033

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primary tumors should be abstracted for a 2018 breast excision with a final diagnosis of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (0.7 cm) with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present as discontinuous foci, spanning 12 cm? See Discussion.

    If the term discontinuous foci means separate tumors, then rule M14 would apply making these multiple reportable tumors.

    Abstract two primaries, invasive mucinous and DCIS, using 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Breast, M14, as the discontinuous foci are separate tumors in this example and the histologies are on different rows of Table 3 of the rules.

    		 2020
    		20200030

    Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be accessioned for the following patient scenario?

    1) 09/2014 Left upper lobe (LUL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with lobectomy.

    2) 04/2016 Right lower lobe (RLL), unifocal, localized acinar adenocarcinoma (8550/3) treated with wedge resection.

    3) 04/2019 (within 3 years, but masked full date) Left lower lobe (LLL), unifocal, non-small cell carcinoma (8046/3) with brain metastasis. See Discussion.

    Rule M4 does not seem to apply because Note 1 defines clinically disease free to mean no evidence of recurrence in the same lung on follow-up. Patient had been disease free in the left lung after 09/2014 diagnosis. The 04/2019 diagnosis was in a different lung than the 4/2016 diagnosis.

    The next applicable rule is either M11 or M14 depending on how we should compare the new 2019 tumor: to the most recent prior tumor in 2016 or to both prior tumors.

    Abstract three primary tumors according to the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules as follows :

    2014: LUL, single primary using M2

    2016: RLL, multiple primary; abstract second primary using M11 (different lung)

    2019: LLL, multiple primary after reapplying rules using M4 when comparing to the same lung in 2014. Abstract this tumor as it has been more than three years and it appears the patient had no clinical evidence of disease in the left lung until 2019.

    		 2020
    		20200079

    Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Primary Site--Brain and CNS: Should the updated note for optic nerve glioma be included in both the 2018 Solid Tumor Rules for Malignant Central Nervous System (CNS) and Peripheral Nerves, Note 6, and the Non-Malignant CNS Tumors, Note 5? See Discussion.

    Should the updated Note 5 from the Non-malignant CNS regarding optic nerve glioma also be incorporated into Note 6 for Malignant CNS rules (the pilocytic astrocytoma note)?

    This was one of the major issues identified in the SEER*Educate Workshop. Registrars have demonstrated they do not consistently think to look at the Non-malignant CNS schema when they see the term glioma and continue to misclassify optic nerve gliomas as malignant.

    This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

    The 2022 Solid Tumor Update will include a new note in the Terms & Definitions, Introduction section that will state: See the Non-malignant CNS rules when the primary site is optic nerve and the diagnosis is either optic glioma or pilocytic astrocytoma. The behavior is non-malignant and coded 9421/1.

    		 2020