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: 03/27/2026 14:50 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20000465 Grade, Differentiation--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field when the only grade/differentiation given is "low grade", "intermediate grade" or "high grade"?

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. For lymphomas, do not code the descriptions "high grade," "low grade," and "intermediate grade" in the Grade, Differentiation field. These terms refer to categories in the Working Formulation and not to histologic grade for lymphoma histologies.

Generally, for histologies other than Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Grade, Differentiation field is coded to 2 [low grade], 3 [intermediate grade] and 4 [high grade] for most cancers.

 2000
20021039 Grade, Differentiation--Breast: How do we code grade for a breast primary diagnosis of "Low grade invasive duct, modified Bloom-Richardson grade II/III (tubule formation 2, nuclear grade 1, mitotic rate 1)"? This appears to add up to a Bloom-Richardson score of 4, which does not fit with a Bloom-Richardson II/III.

Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 1 [grade I] using the information from the BR score.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Grade or differentiation information from breast pathology reports is used in the following priority order:

1. Terminology (well, moderately, poorly)

2. Histologic grade (grade I, grade II)

3. BR scores

4. BR grade

5. Nuclear grade

On the hierarchical list for coding breast grade, the first two priorities do not apply to this case, but the third (Bloom-Richardson scores) does. Add the BR information (2+1+1) for a total score of 4, which translates to BR low grade (code 1). The statement of "II/III" may be a typo that should state I/III.

 2002
20021105 Grade, Differentiation: Do we code to the highest grade even when no grade is given at the time of initial diagnosis, but a grade is obtained on tissue removed after non-surgical treatment has occurred? See discussion.

1. In 2000 a pleural fluid aspirate had no grade. Pt treated with chemo. In 2000 a BSO diagnosed high grade papillary serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary.

2. In 1993 a prostate bx had no grade. Pt treated. In 2001 prostate bx revealed a Gleason's 4+3.

Code the grade at the time of initial diagnosis (if the specimen is from the primary site) or to the grade identified as part of a first course of cancer-directed surgery to the primary site. When different grades are specified for tissue pathologically reviewed from the primary site before and after treatment, code the higher grade. This is true even if the higher grade is obtained while the pt is still undergoing first course of cancer-directed therapy.

1. Code the Grade to 4 [high grade], if the grade information from the BSO specimen represents the grade associated with primary site surgical specimen. Even though the grade was obtained after first course of cancer-directed therapy started, it was obtained during first course of cancer-directed therapy.

2. Code the Grade to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable]. Grade was obtained well after the first course of cancer-directed therapy ended.

 2002
20140001 Grade--Brain and CNS: How should grade be coded for a pineal parenchymal tumor of "intermediate differentiation"? See discussion.

Per a web search, the term "pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation" refers to a pineal tumor with the histology/behavior that falls somewhere between the category of pineocytoma (9361/1) and pineoblastoma (9362/3). In other words, it is a malignant tumor that is a WHO grade II/III neoplasm because it's histologic features and behavior are not quite equivalent to a pineoblastoma (WHO grade IV). Thus, it appears the expression "intermediate differentiation" is actually referring to a type of WHO classification system rather than the grade field.

Should the type of documentation provided in pathology report be used to imply the grade field is being referenced and thus be coded to 2 for "intermediate differentiation" or should grade be coded to 9 based on the information found during the web search?

Code the grade as 2 based on instruction #8 in the revised grade instructions for 2014.

Do not use WHO grade to code the grade field for CNS tumors.

 2014
20260006

First Course of Therapy--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is first course of treatment coded for hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasm (heme) cases who are put on surveillance for years while asymptomatic and then start chemotherapy or other treatment years later once they become symptomatic? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with smoldering myeloma in October 2021 and put on surveillance. In May 2024, the patient became symptomatic and started chemotherapy.

Is the date of diagnosis in 2021, with date of first treatment with chemotherapy in 2024? Or is active surveillance first course and treatment with chemotherapy as second course in 2024?

Code the first course of treatment as active surveillance. Chemotherapy is second course of treatment based on this scenario due to progression.

We will add clarification about this type of scenario to the Heme Manual for the 2027 update.

 2026
20140065

Summary Stage 2000--Melanoma: How should Summary Stage 2000 be coded for 2014+ diagnosed melanoma cases with satellite nodules or in transit metastases? See discussion.

The SEER SS (SSS) 2000 Manual indicates satellite nodules (NOS or less than/equal to 2cm from primary tumor) are regional by direct extension (code 2) and in-transit metastasis (satellite nodules greater than 2 cm from primary tumor) are coded as involvement of regional lymph nodes (code 3). However, CSv0205 indicates mapping for satellite nodules/in transit metastasis (coded in CS LN) was changed to Regional, NOS (code 5). There are no definitions listed for code 5 in the SSS 2000 Manual.

Our staff independently code SSS 2000. Should we code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual or using the mapping information from CSv0205?

Code the existence of satellite nodules and in transit metastases according to the current definitions in the SSS 2000 Manual. Do not use the mapping information from CS to code SSS.

2014
20021204 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Cervix: When both a depth and diameter of the tumor are provided and the description of the diameter is provided in a range, how do you code the size of the primary tumor? See discussion.

Path states "microscopic focus of endocervical glands considered invasive adenoca...maximum depth of that focus measures approximately 2 mm. Maximum diameter of that focus measures 3-4 mm."

What size would be coded for this case: 999, 002, 003, or 004?

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 004 [4 mm]. Code the diameter dimension in the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field and the depth dimension iin the EOD-Extension field. Code the largest number associated if a range is provided for the diameter of the invasive tumor.

If the size of the diameter had not been mentioned, the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field would have been coded to 001 [microscopic focus or foci only], which ignores the size associated with the depth dimension of the tumor.

 2002
20000486 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined/Surgical Procedure of Other Site--Kaposi Sarcoma: How do you code these fields for a groin mass excision containing 4 lymph nodes for a Kaposi sarcoma case that presented with multiple skin lesions?

Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields to 99 99 for Kaposi cases that present systemically and for those that present in more than one site (which includes cases with more than one skin subsite involved at diagnosis). There are no "regional" lymph nodes for such cases. This represents a majority of currently diagnosed Kaposi cases. However, for localized Kaposi cases, you can count the number of regional lymph nodes positive and examined if the primary site selected has a regional lymph node chain(s) associated with it (e.g., soft palate, hard palate, or a skin subsite).

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and after: Code the groin mass excision in the Surgical Procedure of Other Site field to 1 [Non-primary surgical procedure performed; Non-primary surgical resection to other site(s), unknown if whether the site(s) is regional or distant].

 2000
20000512 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Kaposi Sarcoma: What code is used to represent this field for a Kaposi sarcoma with no skin lesions but positive lymph node and bone marrow biopsies?

Code the EOD-Extension field to 13 [Visceral (e.g., pulmonary, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, other)], because of the positive bone marrow. Code the EOD-Lymph Nodes field to 3 [Both clinically enlarged palpable lymph nodes (adenopathy) and pathologically positive lymph nodes], for the pathologically positive node.

Note: Potential revision of the extension scheme will be referred to SEER Medical Advisory Group (SMAG).

 2000
20130047 Date of diagnosis--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: What is the diagnosis date for a patient with a mild thrombocytosis diagnosed in 2008, that was subsequently treated with Anagrelide in 11/2010 following an increase in platelet count, and later in 3/2011 was found to have positive JAK2 study physician refers to as essential thrombocythemia? See Discussion. In 2008, patient diagnosed with mild thrombocytosis. The patient opted to be followed clinically with observation. In November 2010, a CBC showed an increased platelet count to 600,000. Anagrelide was started. The patient would never agree to a bone marrow biopsy. However, in 3/2011 a JAK2 study was performed and read as positive. Following the positive Jak2 study, physician stated the diagnosis was essential thrombocytosis and started the patient on a different drug.

Code the diagnosis date to 3/2011. It wasn't until 3/2011 that the physician documented a reportable diagnosis of essential thrombocytosis [9962/3].

Mild thrombocytosis is not reportable. Therefore, the case was not reportable in 2008. Although the patient was treated in 2010, there was no documentation of a reportable diagnosis.

2013