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: 09/21/2026 04:18 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20010055 EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Are lymph nodes described as being either "keratin positive" or "keratin positive for metastasis" to be coded as involved lymph nodes?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Lymph nodes that are only "keratin positive" would not be coded as involved lymph nodes. The pathologist uses this expression to mean that the nodes stained positive for keratin that does not mean they are also involved with cancer.

However, if the pathologist uses these stains to make a definitive diagnosis of metastatic carcinoma (i.e., uses the expression "keratin positive for metastasis"), then code the nodes as involved.

 Breast N/A 2001
20010070 EOD Lymph Nodes--Colon/Rectum: How do you code "mesocolic lymph nodes" for colorectal primaries?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 3 [Mesenteric, NOS]. Mesocolic lymph nodes are coded as mesenteric lymph nodes.

 Colon N/A 2001
20010073 EOD-Extension--Bladder: Both papillary transitional cell ca in situ and sessile (flat) transitional cell ca in situ are diagnosed simultaneously in the bladder. We code the higher histology (8130/2). For extension, do we use the code that corresponds to the histology (01), or to the higher extension code (06)?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 06 [sessile (flat) (solid) carcinoma in situ], the higher extension code.

 Bladder N/A 2001
20010006 Terminology/EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: Is "firm" a term that implies clinically apparent prostate disease? See discussion.

PE: Prostate firm on DRE

IMP: Rule out prostate cancer

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to clinically inapparent. The clinically apparent term list classifies "firm" as "maybe" being involved. If a maybe term such as "firm" is the only description available, code as clinically inapparent.

 Prostate N/A 2001
20010095 EOD-Extension--Lung: Are "aortico-pulmonary window", "paratracheal space", and "subcarina" coded in the EOD extension field or in the EOD lymph node involvement field? See discussion. Would a lung tumor that extends into the AP window be synonymous with extension into the mediastinum? If so, would this also apply to extension to subcarina, paratracheal space, and other such terms corresponding to areas listed in the mediastinal lymph node field under code 2?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Extension into the aortico-pulmonary window, would be coded in the EOD-Extension field as 70 [mediastinal extension]. If the tumor extends into the paratracheal space, subcarina, or other areas listed under the code 2 in lymph nodes, code the EOD-Extension field to 70 to capture this type of involvement.

 Lung N/A 2001
20010084 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Can you code the known size of the residual tumor in a further resected specimen if the size of the tumor in a prior excisional biopsy is unknown? See discussion. Excisional biopsy is done prior to admission and the tumor size is unknown. Pt is admitted for a mastectomy and the residual tumor size is 5 mm.

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown]. The majority of the tumor would have been removed during excisional biopsy and it is possible that the tumor could have been quite large.

 N/A N/A 2001
20010002 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: How do you code tumor size for lesions described as "at least 2 cm"? See discussion. The expression "at least 2 cm" seems to be different from "greater than 2 cm." Stating "at least" seems to indicate that if the tumor is larger than 2 cm, it is difficult to ascertain the exact tumor size. Should we accept 2 cm as the best info we have, or default to 999 because of the lack of specificity?

For cases diagnosed between 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 020 [2 cm], using the rule "code what you know."

 N/A N/A 2001
20220002

Solid Tumor Rules (2018, 2021)/Histology--Cervix:  For cases diagnosed 1/1/2022 and later, how is histology coded for the following three cervix cases relating to p16? See Discussion.

The 2022 SEER Manual indicates the p16 status (positive or negative) can be used to code more the specific histology for squamous cell carcinoma, human papilloma virus (HPV) positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086). However, the histology coding instructions in the Other Sites schema have not been updated and the 2022 SEER Manual does not cover all situations commonly encountered in the registry. Does the clarification regarding p16 apply to these other situations?

  1. How is histology coded when the final diagnosis of the most representative specimen is adenocarcinoma (NOS), but the immunohistochemistry is p16 negative? Is this adequate to code histology to 8484/3 (adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS)? The pathologist did not specifically indicate this was HPV-independent adenocarcinoma, and the clarification in the 2022 SEER Manual does not include this more specific adenocarcinoma histology.
  2. How is histology coded when the Pap smear is positive for squamous cell carcinoma, p16 positive, but the most representative specimen from the primary tumor (the subsequent cervix biopsy) is only stated to be squamous cell carcinoma (NOS)? The p16 studies were not repeated on the most representative specimen, and the existing 2007 Multiple Primaries/Histology (MP/H) General Rules indicate to code the histology from the most representative specimen over a cytology report. Following the existing 2007 MPH General Rules, the histology should be 8070 (squamous cell carcinoma, NOS). However, this does not account for the p16 status of the tumor.
  3. How is histology coded when a biopsy of a metastasis (e.g., a lymph node metastasis) proved squamous cell carcinoma, p16 negative, but a subsequent biopsy of the primary cervix tumor proved squamous cell carcinoma (NOS) without additional IHC studies? Again, the 2007 MP/H General Rules confirm the primary site specimen should be used to code the histology, resulting in a diagnosis of 8070 (squamous cell carcinoma, NOS), but this ignores the p16 status of the tumor.

For cases diagnosed beginning 1/1/2022, assign histology based on new codes and terms for the examples of cervical cancer using the available p16 results as follows.

1.  Adenocarcinoma, HPV-independent, NOS (C53._) (8484/3)

2.  Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-associated (C53._) (8085/3)

3.  Carcinoma, squamous cell, HPV-independent  (C53._) (8086/3)

The 2022 SEER Manual states: Beginning with cases diagnosed 01/01/2022 forward, p16 test results can be used to code squamous cell carcinoma, HPV positive (8085) and squamous cell carcinoma, HPV negative (8086).  Use the available results as the rules for Other Sites have not been updated yet. The SSDI Manual data item p16 for Cervix schema also states that p16 is based on testing results and not a physician statement.  We can address these situations in a future version of the Solid Tumor Rules. The Other Sites rules will provide document priority when coding hsitology: biopsy vs. resection, cytology vs. histology, primary site vs. mets or regional site. 

 Cervix Uteri Histology 2022
20120094

Reportability: Given that per the 2012 SEER Manual and SINQ 20120081 VIN II-III is no longer reportable, does this change exclusively apply to VIN II-III or does it also apply to AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc.? See Discussion.

VIN II-III was a reportable condition in the past. There was a SINQ note to that effect which is now gone from the system. Would it be better to reactivate that note and put a date reference in it so that there is documentation available to confirm this disease (and other IN II-III diseases) was previously reportable? If the note is not reactivated, could there be some indication in SINQ 20120081 of the prior reportability of this disease process?

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, VIN II-III is reportable. Similarly, AIN II-III, VAIN II-III, etc. are reportable. For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, the primary resource for reportability is ICD-O-3.2. Squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II is listed in ICD-O-3.2 as 8077/2 making it reportable. This applies to the various sites of intraepithelial neoplasia grade II including anus, vulva, and vagina.

 N/A N/A 2012
20200076

Reportability/Solid Tumor Rules (2018)--Kidney: Should clarification (Notes) be added to Table 1 of the 2018 Kidney Solid Tumor Rules regarding the use of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (8312) as these histologies conflict with the ICD-O-3.2? See Discussion.

First, reportability of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma changed from 8323/3 to 8323/1. Although it does not appear the standard-setters implemented this change, note of the conflict between the ICD-O-3.2 and the Solid Tumor Rules (STR) is not included in the Implementation Guidelines or STR. The current Note for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (8323) was left in Table 1, so this presumably is still reportable. It would be helpful if the conflict with ICD-O-3.2 was addressed, especially since the existing Note refers to changes made back in 2016 (not 2018 or 2021).

Second, is the term sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma still coded as a synonym for renal cell carcinoma (8312) because sarcomatoid is referring to a pattern of differentiation or 8318 (renal cell carcinoma, sarcomatoid)? The STR, Table 1, lists sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma as 8312, but the ICD-O-3.2 lists this as 8318. The Note in Table 1 still indicates WHO/IARC and College of American Pathologists agree that sarcomatoid carcinoma is a pattern of differentiation, not a specific subtype, of renal cell carcinoma. This appears to conflict with WHO/IARC ICD-O-3.2 Coding Table as it provides a different, specific histology code for this malignancy. How can WHO/IARC classify this both a pattern of renal cell carcinoma and a separate, specific histology?

This question was prompted from preparing SEER*Educate coding exercises. We will use the answer as a reference in the rationales.

For cases diagnosed 2021 or later, use ICD-O-3.2 to determine reportability. Use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine the number of primaries to report and the histology to code for tumors that are reportable. Do not use the Solid Tumor Rules to determine reportability.

ICD-O-3.2 was implemented by the North American standard setters as of 1/1/2021 and it is the basis for reportability for cases diagnosed as of 1/1/21. See 1.a on page 6 in the 2021 SEER manual, https://seer.cancer.gov/manuals/2021/SPCSM_2021_MainDoc.pdf

WHO 4th edition Tumors of the Urinary System has proposed ICD-O code 8323/1 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma. This has not been approved for implementation by the standard setters. Continue assigning 8323/3 for clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Sarcomatoid RCC is listed as a synonym for RCC 8312/3. This is correct per WHO and our SME. Do NOT code sarcomatoid RCC to 8318/3. 

 Kidney, renal pelvis N/A 2020