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: 03/02/2026 06:46 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20031100

Date of diagnosis: Can a positive VMA:HVA test be used as a date of diagnosis for neuroblastoma? See Description.

Rubin's Clinical Oncology states: Both the catecholamines and their metabolites are used as markers for neuroblastoma, with vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) being the most commonly used. While their absolute values are not of prognostic significance, a higher VMA:HVA ratio suggests a better prognosis for patients with disseminated disease.

Updated answer July 2024

No. Do not code the neuroblastoma diagnosis date from only the date of an elevated urine catecholamine test (VMA or HVA). Neuroblastoma diagnosis should be made on the basis of tissue biopsy or bone marrow aspiration along with elevated urinary catecholamines. Elevated urinary catecholamines alone are not diagnostic of neuroblastoma.

 2003
20031155 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Does perineural invasion affect the coding of SSF3, pathologic extension? See Description. "Adenoca scattered over a 2.5 cm region bilaterally toward the apex. Perineural invasion is identified, including within the right apex." Does this mean that there is extension into the apex?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.For cases diagnosed 2004 and forward:

Presence or absence of perineural invasion does not affect pathologic extension. Most likely perineural invasion is still localized. It means that there is tumor found along the track of the nerves in the prostate. Where the nerves enter the prostate, the capsule is thinner than in other areas; thus pathologists make note of the potential for extracapsular extension.

The CAP Cancer Protocol for Prostate states that perineural invasion "has been associated with a high risk of extraprostatic extension...although the exact prognostic significance remains to be determined."

Based on the available information, code the case example to 023 [Involves both lobes].

 2003
20031143

Ambiguous terminology/EOD-Extension: Is the term "within" a term of involvement in coding extent of disease? See Description.

For example: a kidney tumor is described as "completely encased within the renal capsule with no extension into perirenal fat." Does this mean the renal capsule has been invaded (extension code 20) or that the tumor is totally contained within an area surrounded by the renal capsule (extension code 10)?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The term "within" is not one of the listed ambiguous terms for EOD. Determine extent of involvement from the context in which "within" appears.

In the example, "Encased" is an ambiguous term meaning not involved. Code extension for the example to 10 [Invasive cancer confined to kidney cortex and/or medulla].

 2003
20031112

Primary Site/Histology (Pre-2007)--Unknown & ill-defined site: How are these fields coded for a markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm diagnosed by a fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area? See Description.

The diagnosis was made in Oct. 2002 by a CT guided fine needle aspiration of a large iliac mass, right buttock area. The cytology report says:

a. positive for malignant cells, markedly atypical high grade malignant neoplasm.

b. It is impossible to tell from this aspiration biopsy whether or not this represents a high grade sarcoma or a high grade carcinoma, but our consensus opinion is that this lesion is a high grade carcinoma.

The combination of soft tissue topography and carcinoma morphology is Impossible by SEER edits. How should we code this?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the site to C76.3 [Pelvis, NOS]. Code the histology to 8010/34 [Carcinoma, NOS, high grade].

Unless there is better information available regarding the site, assign C76.3. The information provided above does not indicate the exact site of the mass.

Code the histology based on the consensus opinion stated above.

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
20031012 EOD-Lymph Nodes/Extension: How does one code these fields if the clinical level of disease extension prior to neoadjuvant treatment is greater than demonstrated on pathology at time of resection? See discussion. Breast case described clinically as a "breast mass and nodal metastases" which is treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and at surgery the lymph nodes are pathologically negative.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Use the combination of clinical and pathologic information to code EOD for primary site, extension and lymph nodes. Code the more extensive disease. If lymph nodes are positive clinically and not positive after neoadjuvant treatment, code lymph node involvement. If lymph nodes are negative clinically and positive on path, code lymph node involvement. When neoadjuvant treatment is administered because of a clinical statement of stage or involvement, code EOD based on this clinical information, even if later pathologic information would lead to a lesser EOD. General guideline number 6 (page 1 of SEER EOD-88 3rd ed.) points out that clinical information must be considered when coding EOD. However, do not code EOD based on clinical information disproved by pathologic findings in the absence of intervening treatment. The scenario above: The clinical involvement of the nodes justifies the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, code EOD based on the clinical lymph node involvement.

 2003
20031082 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Pathologist states that the size of the tumor is difficult to measure but is greater than 3cm but less than 5cm. How would we code the tumor size?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the largest dimension mentioned, since that is the standard rule for coding tumor size. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney.

2003
20031138 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. 2003
20031013 EOD-Extension--Pleura: How do you code this field for a pleural mesothelioma with negative pleural effusion? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Pleural effusion is disregarded if it is unknown, NOS or benign. Use other information on the case to stage. 2003
20031146 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast: How do we code this field when there is a difference between the size of the tumor mentioned in the gross (i.e., macroscopic description) and the comment sections of a pathology report? See Description. Path Macro Summary states size as 1.5 cm. The path comment states "largest area of tumor seen is 1.5 cm. However, 8 of the nearly contiguous sections are involved with an estimated 2.4 cm area of involvement." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the size of the largest area of tumor from the path macro summary. For the example provided, code the size as 015 [1.5 cm]. In this case, the additional sections of tumor described in the path comment do not seem to represent pieces of one larger tumor. The 2.4 cm estimated area of involvement was determined by adding together noncontiguous tumor sections. According to the CAP protocol for breast, Note J "When 2 or more distinct invasive tumors are present, each is separately measured...they are not combined into a single larger size." 2003
20031154 Date of Diagnosis/Histology (Pre-2007)/Behavior--Melanoma: How are these fields coded when the first shave biopsy finds "what appears to be the top of a melanoma" and a subsequent shave biopsy finds "features consistent with lentigo maligna?"

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Evaluate each case using all available information, including all pathology reports. Use the date of the first biopsy because it did identify the melanoma. The second biopsy confirmed the histologic type.

According to WHO's Histological Typing of Skin Tumors, lentigo maligna melanoma is similar to lentigo maligna, but has dermal invasion by atypical melanocytes.

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