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: 02/26/2026 06:26 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20051082 2004 SEER Manual Errata/Grade--Colon/Bones: Is the term "pleomorphic" used to code tumor grade to 3 for selected primaries? Delete the row containing the word "pleomorphic" from the tables on pages 93, C-219 and C-411. This correction will be included in the next set of replacement pages for the 2004 SEER manual. 2005
20051074 CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What codes are used when large vessel invasion (V2 grossly evident) is stated to be present on a pathology report? See Discussion.

Example

Cecum, right hemicolectomy: poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the cecum. Large vessel invasion (V2-grossly evident) is present. Microscopic description: The grossly described matted lymph node tissue shows an irregular nuclear contour and is classified as V2, grossly evident venous invasion based on staging criteria of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th Edition.

Per note 2 in the coding scheme for CS-Extension, a nodule with irregular contour in the pericolic adipose tissue should be coded in CS-Extension to code 45. Is the large vessel invasion described in the path report the same process as a tumor nodule in pericolic fat? Should note 2 be used and CS-Extension coded to 45?

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.The description of large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour from the example above describes grossly matted LYMPH NODE tissue. Do not code this in the CS Extension field. Code the CS Lymph Nodes field appropriately based on the rest of the information for this case.

When large vessel invasion and irregular nuclear contour is used to describe a "tumor nodule," rather than a recognizable lymph node, code it in the CS extension field.

 2005
20051061 CS Tumor Size/CS Extension/CS Lymph Nodes--Lung: How are these fields coded when there is no description of a primary lung tumor, lymph node biopsies are negative, but biopsy of a "level 7 mass" is positive for squamous cell carcinoma? See Discussion. Example: Chest CT: Enlarging subcarinal mass, 3.4 cm, is most likely malignant adenopathy or perhaps primary tumor. The clinician subsequently described a patient history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. He stated that a PET scan revealed multifocal thoracic disease consistent with stage 3B carcinoma. This was followed by mediastinoscopy with lymph node biopsies (all negative) but the biopsies of "level 7 mass and subcarinal level 7 mass" showed squamous cell carcinoma.

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.If this case is determined to be a lung primary, code the CS fields:

CS Tumor Size: 999 [Unknown]

CS Extension: 99 [Primary tumor cannot be assessed]

CS Lymph Nodes: 20 [Subcarinal lymph node involvement] based on positive level 7 biopsy, history of mediastinal lymphadenopathy and subcarinal "adenopathy" per CT.

 2005
20051054 CS Eval--Ovary: How is CS Mets Eval coded when the patient has positive pleural effusion confirmed by cytology?

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.Code CS Mets Eval for the example above 3 [path exam of metastatic tissue] assuming there has been no pre-treatment. Positive cytology is required for confirmation of pleural effusion for an ovarian primary.

 2005
20051103 CS Extension/Histology (Pre-2007)--Melanoma: When do the terms "regression is present," "apparent regression," or "undergoing regression" affect the coding of melanoma cases? See Discussion.

For melanoma, many path reports document the presence or absence of regression. At what point does the presence of regression become significant enough to code it for histology and for CS Extension?

Example 1: Skin biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Breslow thickness 0.38 mm, Clark's level II, ulceration is absent, regression is present.

Example 2: Punch biopsy showed malignant melanoma, Clark's level II, 0.34-mm maximum depth of invasion, with apparent regression.

Example 3: Skin biopsy showed lentigo maligna undergoing regression.

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 tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Regression does not affect CS staging for cutaneous melanoma. "Malignant melanoma, regressing" [8723] is coded only when it is the final diagnosis. Do not use code 8723 for the examples above.

According to our pathologist consultant:

Melanoma can occasionally undergo "spontaneous" regression -- the tumor can become smaller, and in some cases even disappear. This phenomenon is likely due to an increased immune response on the part of the "host" (person with the melanoma). This is noted occasionally in patients with metastatic disease which gets smaller, or even disappears. We think this is also what has happened in patients who get diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, say in a lymph node, but have no primary tumor, though sometimes give a history of a skin lesion which came and then went away, or a skin lesion which was not submitted for pathological examination. In addition, we (pathologists) occasionally see biopsies which have melanoma as well as the presence of the immune reaction to it, and once in a while, the immune reaction with little or no evidence of residual melanoma.

The College of American Pathologists says that regression of 75% or more of the melanoma carries an adverse prognosis.

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.

 2005
20051015 Priorities/CS Tumor Size--Breast: What is the priority order used in coding tumor size for this site when there is a larger 2 cm lesion noted on the PET scan and smaller sizes described in the pathology report as two malignant masses one measuring 0.8 cm and the second measuring 1.0 cm per the GROSS?

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.Code CS Tumor Size as 1.0 cm. The pathology report is the highest priority source for coding tumor size. When multiple tumors are present, code the size of the largest tumor.

 2005
20051108 Reportability--Brain and CNS: Which types of neurofibromatosis are reportable to SEER? See Discussion. Clin exam: probable neurofibromatosis, type I. On the trunk alone are >14 cafe au lait spots all at least 10mm. Both axillary regions have freckling. No palpable fibromas, spine is straight, no organomegaly. MRI of head: no abnormality. Neurofibromatosis type I (von Recklinghausen's disease, the Elephant Man disease) is primarily tumors of the subcutaneous tissues. By itself, NF1 is not reportable. NF2 is much more likely to develop acoustic neuromas. This syndrome is reportable only when acoustic neuroma(s) is present, because the acoustic neuroma is what is reportable. This case is not reportable because none of the symptoms affect the central nervous system. 2005
20051059

Behavior/Date of Diagnosis--Lung: If the term "Pancoast tumor, NOS" is malignant by definition, should the date of diagnosis be coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis when the clinical diagnosis is made prior to the histologic confirmation of the malignancy?

Yes, Pancoast tumor is by definition malignant. It is defined as a lung cancer in the uppermost segment of the lung that directly invades into the brachial plexus (nerve bundles) of the neck, causing pain. If a Pancoast tumor was identified on imaging prior to the biopsy, the date of diagnosis should be linked to the Pancoast tumor report.

 2005
20051094 Grade, Differentiation/Priorities: Which has priority, the differentiation or the nuclear grade for a liver biopsy histology described as "well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, nuclear grade 3/4"? For most sites, differentiation has priority over the nuclear grade when both are specified (excluding breast and kidney). Assign grade code 1 [well differentiated] to the example above. 2005
20051115 Histology (Pre-2007)--All Sites: How are "malignant cells" in a cytology or "probably malignancy" in a CT scan coded?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Assign code 8001/3 [Tumor cells, malignant] when the only information available is a cytology report stating "malignant cells."

Assign code 8000/3 [Neoplasm, malignant] when then only information available is a CT report stating "probable malignancy."

See ICD-O-3 page 27 for an explanation of "cancer" [8000] and "carcinoma" [8010].

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.

 2005