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: 01/14/2026 09:14 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031206 EOD-Extension: How is this field coded for synchronous primaries when metastatic disease is found and there is no statement to indicate which primary is the source of the metastases? See Description. Patient was diagnosed with both esophageal and pancreatic cancer. Liver metastases were also identified. The source of the liver mets is unknown. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Search the record for information about the source of the metastasis. If no such information can be found, code the metastasis to both primaries. Update the abstracts when information becomes available confirming the primary site responsible for the metastasis. Assuming the liver metastases in the example above are distant (i.e. not contiguous) code extension as 85 [Metastasis]. 2003
20031119 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Colon: For this primary, under which field are satellite tumor nodules in mesenteric adipose tissue coded? See Description.

Sigmoid colon, low anterior resection: Invasive adenocarcinoma, 5.5 cm greastest dimension, moderately differentiated. Tumor invades through muscularis propria, into mesenteric adipose tissue. No penetration of visceral peritoneum. Proximal, distal, and radial margins free of tumor. Satellite tumor nodule present within mesenteric adipose tissue, 1.5 cm diameter, located 2.8 cm from main bowel wall tumor. Ten lymph nodes identified, with no evidence of metastatic tumor.

Comment: The satellite tumor nodule present within the mesenteric adipose tissue has an infiltrating, irregular contoured appearance and does not appear to represent a previously replaced lymph node. This appears to be a local metastasis with histologic features most commonly associated with venous invasion (see AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, Sixth Edition, 2002, page 131 for current staging terminology).

 For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: For EOD, each grossly detectable nodule in the regional mesenteric fat is counted as one regional lymph node. 2003
20031144 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: What code is used to represent the histology "Ductal carcinoma in situ; 6 mm focus of invasion is a pure mucinous carcinoma that appears to have arisen in the background of encysted papillary carcinoma."

Code to mucinous (8480) since that is the only clearly invasive component of this diagnosis.

According to our pathologist consultant, "Encysted papillary carcinoma is the same thing as intracystic papillry carcinoma, which I think of as an intraductal papillary carcinoma which has greatly expanded the duct to form a cyst-like structure. It generally behaves in an in-situ rather than an invasive fashion. The only clearly invasive component is the mucinous carcinoma, which is what I would code."

 2003
20031062 Primary Site--Melanoma: How would this field be coded for a pleural effusion consistent with metastatic melanoma and "no skin lesions?" Code primary site as C44.9 [Skin, NOS]. ICD-O-3 does not list a suggested site code for 8720/3 because melanoma can arise in other parts of the body. However, C44.9 [Skin, NOS] is the default when the primary cannot be found. 2003
20031171 Reportability: Is pseudomyxoma peritonei always reportable? See Description.

In the ICD-O-3, pseudomyxoma peritonei has a behavior code of 6, indicating that it is malignant. Does this imply that pseudomyxoma peritonei is always a reportable malignancy? In the past, our pathologist consultant told us that pseudomyxoma peritonei is only a reportable malignancy if the underlying tumor is malignant. A benign cystadenoma of the appendix, for example, can rupture causing pseudomyxoma perionei. Does SEER agree with our pathologist consultant?

Example: Patient was found to have psuedomyxoma peritonei. Right hemicolectomy was done. Path reported an appendix with mucinous cystic tumor of undetermined malignant potential. A definite diagnosis of cancer can not be rendered.

Reportability is determined from the behavior of the primary tumor and the behavior of implants. If either are malignant, the case is reportable.

The case example does not seem to be reportable, based on the available information. Cancer diagnosis has not been made according to the pathology report.

 2003
20031189 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Would a papillary carcinoma of the right lobe of the thyroid diagnosed approximately 2 1/2 years after a papillary carcinoma of the left lobe be coded as a second primary? See Description.

8/31/1999: papillary carcinoma, left lobe thyroid, treated with lobectomy.

1/17/2002: papillary carcinoma, right lobe, treated with lobectomy, completion thyroidectomy.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, this is a second primary. The second papillary carcinoma was more than 2 months after the first and not specified as recurrent or metastatic.

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.

 2003
20031024 Surgical Fields--Head & Neck: How does one code the removal of benign submandibular and sublingual glands performed during a neck dissection for a head and neck cancer? See discussion. Should the removal be coded as incidental in the surgical Procedure if the Other Site field? Does it make a difference if the submandibular gland is removed en toto with lymph nodes or if the gland is submitted as a separate specimen? Does it make a difference if the glands are involved?

Removal of the lower salivary glands is part of a radical neck dissection and is not recorded in Surgery of Primary Site or Surgery of Other Site. Radical neck dissection is coded under "Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery."

It does not matter whether or not the gland is submitted as a separate specimen. It does not matter whether or not the gland is involved.

 2003
20031116

EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can the term "filling defect" be used to code tumor size? See Description.

Site: Bladder

CT abd/pelvis: 4 cm filling defect of the bladder encasing jetstream of distal ureter. 2-3 cm lesion may be extension to bladder. KUB: 3-4 cm filling defect within bladder.

Cystoscopy: large bladder tumor with small tumor extending out of the large tumor.

OP Findings: Large tumor on right of bladder extending from bladder neck lateral and posterior

Pathology: TURB: High grade TCC, Grade III with focal lamina propria invasion.

For tumors diagnosed 1998-2003:

Information on size from imaging/radiographic techniques can be used to code size when there is no more specific size information from a pathology or operative report, but it should be taken as low priority, just above a physical exam.

The term "filling defect" from a CT or KUB may be used to code tumor size for bladder in the absence of more reliable size information from path, operative or endoscopic reports.

 2003
20031048 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How is tumor size coded when there is a clinical tumor size, the excisional biopsy pathology report has a tumor size and the resection specimen has residual tumor, but there is no tumor size provided in the pathology report? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor from the excisional biopsy. If there is some indication that a large amount of tumor was removed at the time of the resection, code the clinical size instead. When both an excisional biopsy and a resection show tumor, code the largest size of tumor reported. 2003
20031029 Histology (Pre-2007)/Grading--Head & Neck: Can terms that commonly modify histologic types or grades be used if they are only expressed in the microscopic portion of the pathology report? See Description. Final path diagnosis on a biopsy of the base of tongue is squamous carcinoma. The micro portion of the path report states the following: Multiple fragments of abnormal epithelium with a complex growth pattern. Many of the cells are small and poorly differentiated, interspersed with areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium. This is consistent with squamous cell carcinoma in situ with areas of invasive carcinoma. Do we code histology to 8070/3 or 8071/3?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes, code using terms from the microscopic description if there is a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type.

Code the case example as 8070/33 [Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS, poorly differentiated]. The microscopic description adds grade information, but does not make a definitive statement of a more specific histologic type. "Keratinized epithelium" is not the same as keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (8071/3). The mention of "areas of well-differentiated keratinized epithelium" refers to "normal" tissue within the specimen, in contrast to a type of neoplastic tissue.

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.

 2003