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: 12/29/2025 13:39 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091084 Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.

Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.

The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.

The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69.

 2009
20091095 CS Site Specific Factor--Prostate: Please clarify how SEER registries should use code 040 for Site-Specific Factor 3 on prostate cases. See Discussion. The 6/11/09 NAACCR Webinar on prostate cancer pointed out that SSF 3 code 040 refers the registrar to Note 4, which states "when the apical, distal urethral, bladder base, or bladder neck margins are involved and there is no extracapsular extension, use code 040." The webinar went on to say that code 040 ONLY applies to these specific margins, and that if other margins are involved (for example, the 'right lateral margin'), we should not use code 040. Is this consistent with SEER's interpretation of Note 4? Are we to ignore involvement of margins other than those specified in Note 4, and consequently code SSF 3 within the 000-032 range? Would this also apply to code 048 (extracapsular extension and margins involved)?

Yes, SEER agrees. Code SSF3, code 040 per page C-740 of 2007 SEER manual exactly as stated in Note 4. According to the Inquiry and Response System of the CoC, Note 4 lists specific margins that were once thought to have a prognostic impact. Code 040 in SSF3 should be used only when those margins are involved.

Note 4 pertains to code 040, not to code 048.

2009
20091028

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries/Cancer-directed treatment--Lung: Is a 2008 occurrence of non-small cell carcinoma in the left lower lobe following a 1998 occurrence of the same histology in the left lung to be counted as a new primary if the 1998 primary was treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation but not surgery? See Discussion.

1998 diagnosis on non-small cell carcinoma treated with radiation and chemotherapy. In 2008, there is an abnormality in the LLL with brushings/washings positive for non-small cell carcinoma.

According to the MP/H rules, M8 states this would be a new primary. However, in the document titled " Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008," found on the SEER website, it stated that because the patient never had surgery for the initial primary there is no evidence that the patient was ever disease free. Therefore, the occurrence of the latter tumor would not be a new primary (p. 7, "colon"). Does this answer pertain only to surgery or does it apply to any type of treatment?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the 2007 MP/H rules apply if the 2008 diagnosis is a new tumor. Was there any statement that the patient was free of disease (NED) after the chemo and radiation therapy? (A patient can be disease free without surgery). If there is no statement to the contrary, no mention of metastasis from the 1998 diagnosis, and no mention of disease between 1998 and 2008, follow lung rule M8 and abstract the 2008 diagnosis as a new primary.

This lung case differs from the colon case discussed in the document titled "Quality Improvement Meeting August 2008." For the colon case, there was disease in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Based on the information provided, the 2007 diagnosis was not a new tumor because the patient was never free of disease. Therefore, the 2007 diagnosis is not a new primary. The number of reportable primaries was based on disease status over time, and was not based on the type of treatment given for the initial tumor (i.e., surgery or any other treatment modality).

 2009
20091024

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: Are diagnoses in bladder, ureter, renal pelvis, and other urinary made prior to 2007 used in determining multiple primaries? See Discussion.

Per the General Information for MPH, Rule #3, the rules are effective for cases diagnosed January 1, 2007 and after. Do not use these rules to abstract cases diagnosed prior to January 1, 2007.

Example: Is a 2006 diagnosis of a renal pelvis primary with the histology 8130/3 and a 2007 diagnosis of a bladder primary with histology 8130/3 "multiple tumors" or is the bladder tumor a new primary because it is a single tumor at the time of diagnosis in 2007?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess tumors diagnosed in 2007 or later.

For the example above, use the 2007 rules to determine whether or not the bladder tumor diagnosed in 2007 is a new primary. Use the Multiple Tumors module when comparing a 2007 or later diagnosis to an earlier diagnosis. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 2007 bladder urothelial tumor is not a new primary since there is an existing 2006 renal pelvis urothelial primary.

 2009
20091064 Radiation Sequence with Surgery--Head & Neck: How is this field coded for a tonsil primary diagnosed on 4/16/07 by a regional lymph node FNA when the patient subsequently initiates radiation on 5/8/07 and has a tonsillectomy with neck dissection on 7/30/07? The best way to handle this situation is to assign code 2 [Radiation before surgery] in Radiation Sequence with Surgery. Code 2 provides the best description of the sequence of events in this case. Radiation was delivered prior to the resection of the primary site. 2009
20091128

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a patient was diagnosed with breast carcinoma in 2001 and was subsequently diagnosed with a mammary carcinoma in a chest wall mass in 2008? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma of the right breast in April 2001. Following modified radical mastectomy in May 2001, the patient was disease free. In December 2008 the patient was diagnosed with a right chest wall mass, invasive poorly differentiated mammary carcinoma with lobular origin. If this is a new primary in 2008, would we code the primary site to breast or chest wall? Please see I&R answers 25924, 22163 and 26155 with similar case scenarios that give two different answers. One response indicates coding this type of scenario as new primary to chest wall and the other two responses indicate this should not be a new primary because the chest wall is a metastatic site. The pathology report does not state that this is metastatic and it is unknown if there is breast tissue left behind at the chest wall.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, this case is a single primary. The chest wall (NOS) is a metastatic site for breast cancer. There is no mention of residual breast tissue, so the 2008 diagnosis cannot be a new primary.

"Chest wall" is an ambiguous term. It can mean the internal chest wall or the external chest wall. When the path report states that the "recurrence" is in residual breast tissue, this is most likely the external chest wall and the residual breast tissue is part of the breast not removed by the MRM. In contrast, skin or the chest wall, NOS, are regional metastases.

 2009
20091102 MP/H Rules/Histology--Thyroid: How should histology be coded for a diagnosis of "papillary sclerosing carcinoma" with an additional description of the tumor being "nonencapsulated"? See Discussion. Pathology report reads, "Papillary sclerosing carcinoma." In one case, the results are in CAP protocol format and next to 'Encapsulation of tumor' it says 'No.' In the other case, it is not in CAP format, but the microscopic description says, 'encapsulation of tumor - no.' Is the correct code 8350? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code 8350 [Nonencapsulated sclerosing carcinoma] per MP/H Other Sites Rule H11. The definition for 8350 in the Morphology section of ICD-O-3 includes nonencapsulated as well as diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinoma. When the pathologist states 'No' for encapsulated, that means nonencapsulated. 2009
20091051 MP/H Rules/HistologyCorpus Uteri: How should histology be coded for a "carcinosarcoma with high grade sarcomatous component within a polyp, with greater component of endometrioid carcinoma and foci papillary serous carcinoma within polyp"? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8980/3 [Carcinosarcoma] according to rule H17. Rule H12 does not apply since the final diagnosis is not "adenocarcinoma." 2009
20091100

MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How is histology coded for a "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type," arising in the skin of the lower leg? See Discussion.

In researching this, acral lentiginous melanoma is observed on the palms, soles and under the nails. To code to 8744, do we specifically have to see the word "acral" lentiginous melanoma?

For cases diagnosed 2007 to 2020

Assign 8742/2 [lentigo maligna] to "melanoma in situ, lentiginous type."

Acral lentiginous melanoma is not the same as melanoma, lentiginous type. "Acral lentiginous melanoma," 8744, should be used only if the report states acral lentiginous melanoma or malignant melanoma, acral lentiginous type.

Acral lentiginous melanoma most often occurs on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hands.

 2009
20091029 MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How should histology be coded for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus, NOS or a nevus, NOS?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8720 [Melanoma, NOS] to melanoma arising in a nevus that does not have a specific code or to melanoma arising in a nevus, NOS.

Currently, ICD-O-3 does not have a specific classification for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus.

 2009