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 00:11 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021206 EOD-Extension--Breast: The SEER coding scheme classifies the in situ portion as less than 25% [code 14] or equal to or greater than 25% [code 15]. How do you code a pathologist's statement of "less than or equal to 25%"? See discussion. "insitu ca constitutes less than or equal to 25% of the total mass."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 14 [invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in Tumor Size AND in situ described as minimal (less than 25%)]. The pathologist did not use a code as defined by SEER. For cases described as "less than or equal to 25%", choose the lower of the two EOD code choices.

 2002
20021189

Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should be reported when a 5/99 diagnosis of stage III follicular large cell lymphoma [9698/3] of the conjunctiva [C69.0] is followed with a 6/01 diagnosis of small cleaved lymphoma [9591/3] of the breast [C50.9]? See discussion.

The Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases folding table states that this should be one primary, but is this true when they are both extralymphatic in origin?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Report as two primaries if that reflects the medical opinion for this case. The table is a guide, but does not overrule the clinician's opinion. These extranodal lymphomas are diagnosed in two different sites more than 2 months apart. They are listed as the same primary in the folding table because 9591/3 is generally a non-specific term and 9698/3 is a more specific cell type. If both histologies were diagnosed in the same organ or tissue, this is the same primary. However, the primary sites in this example are distinctly different.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2002
20021188 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Testis: How many primaries should be reported when seminoma is diagnosed simultaneously in both testicles and both tumors are encapsulated?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Report this cases as two primaries, unless there is information in the record confirming one primary.

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
20021138 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when a pathology report describes a tumor as a low grade neoplasm consistent with a specific histologic type (e.g., Low grade neoplasm consistent with carcinoid)? Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Low grade]. 2002
20021053 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.

1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.

2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.

3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.

4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?

5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)

6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:

1) 10

2) 10

3) 10

4) 99

5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76

6) 85

 2002
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. 2002
20021132

EOD-Extension: The medical record lacks a clear statement that metastatic workup was complete. A metastatic deposit is identified within 4 months of diagnosis and while the patient is undergoing first course of treatment. How do you code the EOD-Extension field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In coding the EOD-Extension field, ignore metastasis that is discovered after the initial workup is completed regardless of the timeframe from diagnosis date until the date the metastatic deposit was discovered. The metastasis is progression of disease.

Any of the following represents progression of disease. Do not code the subsequently identified metastatic involvement in the EOD:

1) The metastatic workup was complete and treatment started before the procedure was done that found the metastatic involvement.

2) A procedure, such as a scan, was negative initially and a repeat of that procedure is now positive.

3) The treatment plan is developed for a localized disease process.

If you are unable to determine whether the newly discovered metastasis represents progression or is part of the initial workup, regard the metastasis as progression. Do not code the metastasis in the EOD-Extension field.

 2002
20020024 Reportability--Cervix: The SEER Program Code Manual lists CIN III and carcinoma in situ of the cervix as not being reportable for cases diagnosed in 1996 or later, but does not list "adenocarcinoma in situ" or "squamous cell carcinoma in situ." Are these histologies still reportable?

For primary site cervix uteri, only histologies with behavior codes of 3 [invasive] are reportable to SEER for all registries.

Some SEER registries have opted to continue to collect behavior codes of 2 [in situ] for cervix uteri primaries.

 2002
20021142 Date of Diagnosis: If an originally diagnosed "benign" tumor is later discovered to have "metastasized", should the date of diagnosis be back-dated to the date the original tumor was discovered or to the date the metastatic disease was identified? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date the malignancy is diagnosed. If there was a medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis that indicates that the patient had cancer at the earlier time, then the earlier date is coded as the date of diagnosis. If no medical or pathologic review of the original benign diagnosis is done, then code the date of diagnosis to the date the metastasis is discovered. 2002
20021092 Histology/Primary Site--CLL/SLL: How should these fields be coded for a "chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma" [CLL/SLL] diagnosed on a lymph node biopsy that is referred to by the clinician as CLL? See discussion. Does the clinician's reference to this disease as CLL change the SEER rule to code to SLL if the disease arises in a lymph node or solid tissue?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Code the Histology field to 9670/3 [Malignant lymphoma, small lymphocytic, NOS] and the Primary Site field to C77._ [lymph nodes] when CLL/SLL is diagnosed in lymph node or solid tissue, even if the clinician refers to CLL. When CLL/SLL is diagnosed in the blood, code as leukemia.

Refer to clarification #6 on the ICD-O-3 Errata and Clarifications. "...if disease is diagnosed only in the blood or bone marrow, code the primary site to C42.1, bone marrow and assign the leukemia morphology code. If the diagnosis is made on any other tissue (typically lymph nodes, lymphatic structures, breast, and stomach), code to the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology. If the diagnosis is made on both blood or bone marrow and a tissue biopsy, code the tissue involved and assign the lymphoma morphology."

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 2002