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: 09/19/2026 22:54 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
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.

 Cervix Uteri N/A 2002
20130009 Grade--Pancreas: Can the grade be coded when a biopsy is taken from the part of a primary tumor that has contiguously extended into an adjacent organ or structure? See Discussion. The grade rule states to code grade from tissue removed from the primary tumor only, never from a metastatic site or a site of recurrence. There is no mention of whether the grade can be coded if only the contiguous site of involvement is biopsied when a single tumor directly extends to an adjacent tissue or organ. For example, is grade coded to 2 when a pancreatic tumor extends into the duodenum, and the duodenal biopsy confirms moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatic primary? Or does the primary organ/site have to be biopsied in order to be able to code grade?

For one tumor involving a contiguous site, when there is no tissue specimen available from the primary site, you may code the grade based on the tissue from the tumor in the contiguous site.

This instruction is included in the upcoming grade instruction document.

 Pancreas N/A 2013
20170074

Reportability--Kidney: Is a renal cell neoplasm stated to be multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential a reportable tumor if the physician refers to the tumor as renal cell carcinoma in a follow-up note after surgery? If reportable, how is histology coded? See Discussion.

The partial nephrectomy final diagnosis is renal cell neoplasm. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Summary lists histology as: multilocular clear cell neoplasm of low malignant potential. The diagnosis comment adds: This neoplasm currently termed multilocular clear cell renal cell neoplasm of low malignant potential (WHO 2016), was previously termed cystic renal cell carcinoma.

For now, report the case and code to 8310/3.

In the 3rd Ed WHO Tumors of the Urinary System, multilocular clear cell RCC is coded as 8310/3, however the recent 4th Ed WHO Tumors of Urinary System notes this term is obsolete and a synonym for multilocular cystic renal neoplasm of low malignant potential (8316/1) which would be non-reportable. Per WHO 3rd Ed these tumors never recur or metastasize which may be why the behavior code is shown as /1. The standard setters must review this terminology change in relation to reporting the case as it may impact incidence rates.

 Kidney, renal pelvis N/A 2017
20190082

Primary site/Histology--Peritoneum: What is the correct primary site code for peritoneal mesothelioma in a female? When I use C482, it seems that the fields are all geared towards primary peritoneal carcinoma with FIGO staging, etc.

For mesothelioma, NOS (9050) and epithelioid mesothelioma (9052) of the peritoneum for females, assign C481, C482, or C488 as appropriate based on the site of origin in the medical documentation. The Primary Peritoneal Ca schema is assigned and you will need to complete the SSDIs for FIGO staging, CA-125 PreTx Interpretation, and Residual Tumor Volume Post Cytoreduction.

If the histology is 9051 or 9053 with primary site of C481, C482, or C488 for females, the Retroperitoneum schema is assigned. The only SSDI for this schema is Bone Invasion.

 N/A Histology, Primary site 2019
20051136 Surgery of Primary Site--Breast: How is the surgery field coded when an excisional biopsy that is originally stated to be negative is later determined to be positive on ROS and a mastectomy with negative findings is performed 2 years later? See Discussion.

Hospital 'A' performed a breast biopsy and found only atypia. Two years later Hospital 'B' re-read the first biopsy as multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type. A mastectomy at Hospital 'B' followed and all specimens from this were negative.

Do we report the procedure at Hospital 'A' an excisional biopsy, despite the negative findings at the time?

For hospital A, follow the instructions in the 2004 SEER Manual on page 5, #4. For hospital B, the case is not reportable.

The diagnosis date is the date of first excision. Code the breast excision from Hospital A as surgery, first course treatment. The mastectomy was not part of first course treatment.

 Breast Surgery of Primary Site 2005
20110138

First course treatment--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is first course of treatment when a patient received multiple different chemotherapy regimens before a complete remission for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was achieved?

The patient was initially treated with involved field radiation and R-CHOP. The patient still had residual disease and the treatment was changed to RICE. Following RICE, there was still residual disease and the patient underwent another unspecified chemotherapy treatment. The patient was then transferred to a transplant center for pre-transplant chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant. The patient achieved a complete response after transplant.

Should the R-CHOP and radiation be the first course treatment in a case like this, or would first course treatment include all chemotherapy and the transplant?

For hard-to-treat diseases such as DLBCL, the treatment plan outlined prior to treatment beginning may indicate, "The first course of treatment will be radiation and R-CHOP. If the R-CHOP does not achieve remission, we will use RICE." In other words, the first course treatment plan includes a second round of chemotherapy if the patient has not achieved a complete response after the R-CHOP and radiation. If the treatment plan was documented like this for the patient, the first course treatment includes R-CHOP, involved field radiation and RICE.

However, if there is no initial treatment plan in the medical record, all treatment provided after the date when "residual disease" or "failed to achieve remission" is documented in the medical record is either second or a subsequent course of therapy.

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms First course treatment 2011
20240045

Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Should cases be reported and abstracted based on ambiguous terminology, e.g., suspicious for prostate cancer, when the physician is not treating the case as malignant? See Discussion.

Please comment on these specific scenarios.

  1. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, but the urologist is not considering this malignant, nor is the urologist treating for malignancy, but there is no clear statement from the physician that this is not reportable.  Should this case be abstracted?
  2. A prostate biopsy is suspicious for adenocarcinoma, and there is a statement by the physician that this is not yet malignant. Should this case be abstracted?
  3. Prostate MRI with PIRADS 4 or 5; however, the treating urologist does not call this malignant and is not treating patient for prostate cancer.  [Example: 2024 Prostate MRI - PI-RADS 4. Follow up with Urologist states patient to repeat Prostate MRI in 1 year and continue with yearly PSA levels and there is no mention of prostate cancer other than the PI-RADS score]. Should this case be abstracted?

For each of your scenarios, the medical record information indicates that the case is not reportable based on physician opinion. Do not abstract these cases.

Remember that the ambiguous terms list is to be used as a last resort. The ideal way to approach abstracting situations when the medical record is not clear is to follow up with the physician. If the physician is not available, the medical record, and any other pertinent reports (e.g., pathology, etc.) should be read closely for the required information. See page 19 in the SEER Manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2024/SPCSM_2024_MainDoc.pdf

 Prostate N/A 2024
20170078

Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery--Lung: How do you code Regional Nodes Positive, Regional Nodes Examined, and Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery when a fine needle aspirate (FNA) or biopsy of supraclavicular lymph nodes is positive for a lung cancer primary? Supraclavicular lymph nodes are distant in SEER Summary Stage and regional by AJCC. See Discussion.

There is a discrepancy in regional lymph nodes for lung between SEER and AJCC. Supraclavicular lymph nodes/cervical lymph nodes are distant for SEER but regional for AJCC. For SEER states, when there is an FNA or biopsy of a supraclavicular lymph node performed and it is positive for a lung primary and no other lymph nodes are examined, do you code 95 in Regional Nodes Positive/Regional Nodes Examined and code "1" for Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery or do you not count the FNA/biopsy of the supraclavicular lymph node since it is distant?

For cases diagnosed through 2017, use the Collaborative Staging (CS) system to determine regional versus distant lymph nodes. Supraclavicular lymph nodes are regional for lung in CS.

Please note that Summary Stage is not the same as EOD, CS, or AJCC staging. Registrars should not use Summary Stage definitions for anything other than directly assigning the Summary Stage field.

 Lung Scope Regional LN Surgery 2017
20180106

First Course Treatment--Other Therapy: Please explain how to code this new therapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for rare neuroendocrine tumors. See Discussion.

According to this article, PRRT treatment lutetium Lu 177 dotatate was approved earlier this year by the United States Food and Drug Administration for adult use. PRRT is a nuclear medicine therapy that travels throughout the body looking for a certain receptor within neuroendocrine tumors. These include pancreatic and small neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed into the tumor, the radioactive material starts to break down tumor cells, killing them. It is the first radioactive drug approved for the targeted treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

(http://cinj.org/rutgers-cancer-institute-new-jersey-and-robert-wood-johnson-university-hospital-are-first-state ).

For cases diagnosed prior to 2023: Code Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT) in the data item Other Therapy, code 1, Other.

See SINQ 20220042 and 20230005 for information pertaining to cases diagnosed in 2023 or later.

 N/A First course treatment, Other therapy 2018
20130190

Reportability: Is a thymoma, type B3 malignant and, therefore, reportable? See Discussion.

Recent information received from a registrar/pathologist states the WHO classifies well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] as a synonym for type B3 thymoma.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2021

Thymoma, type B3 [8585/1] is not reportable. Well-differentiated thymic carcinoma [8585/3] is reportable.

WHO lists well-differentiated thymic carcinoma as a synonym for type B3 thymoma, but indicates the behavior code differs as indicated above.

See the applicable SEER manual for cases diagnosed 2021 and later.

 N/A N/A 2013