| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20120086 | Primary site: What is the single primary site used for a patient with multiple tumors in the duodenum and jejunum? See discussion. | The patient has a tumor in the jejunum and another tumor in the duodenum. Both tumors have the same histology. This disease process is a single primary per Other Sites Rule M18. Is the primary site coded to the more invasive tumor? If the tumors are equally invasive, is the primary site coded to C179? | Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS] for multiple invasive tumors of the small intestine accessioned as a single primary.
The steps used to arrive at this decision are:
Step 1: Go to the Primary Site subsection located in Section IV of the 2012 SEER Manual titled "Description of This Neoplasm."
Step 2: Apply instruction 5. "Code the last digit of the primary site code to '9' for single primaries, when multiple tumors arise in different subsites of the same anatomic site and the point of origin cannot be determined." Code the primary site to C179 [small intestine, NOS].
When multiple tumors arising in different subsites are accessioned as a single primary, the primary site is coded to the NOS code, in this case small intestine, NOS [C179]. The level of invasion does not determine the primary site, unless one or more of the tumors is in situ and another is invasive. |
N/A | Primary site | 2012 |
|
|
20000549 | EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: How are these fields coded if radiation to the primary site and/or regional lymph nodes is performed prior to surgery? | For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:
Code the EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined fields per the information in the pathology report(s). Radiation to the primary site would not affect the status of the lymph node involvement. Radiation to the regional lymph node region may or may not affect the pathologic status of the lymph nodes. However, for these fields code the best information available about the status of the lymph nodes which is reflected in the pathology report(s). |
N/A | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20010134 | Diagnostic Confirmation--Testis: How do you code this field when a testicular mass is confirmed to be cancer on physical exam and testicular antigen, but the orchiectomy specimen was negative and yet the final signout diagnosis on the medical record was "testicular cancer"? | Code the Diagnostic Confirmation field to 5 [Positive laboratory test/marker study] because the disease was confirmed both clinically and by a positive marker. Code 8 [Clinical diagnosis only] is used when the diagnosis is based on information other than that coded in 5, 6, or 7 [positive lab test/marker study, visualization, and radiography or other imaging techniques]. Code 8 is rarely used. | N/A | Diagnostic confirmation | 2001 | |
|
|
20081050 | MP/H Rules--Fallopian Tube: How many primaries are to be abstracted for a case in which a bilateral fallopian tube primary is staged T1c by the pathologist? See Discussion. | A bilateral fallopian tube primary was coded to multiple primaries. However, the AJCC staging for T1b says, "tumor limited to both tubes" and T1c "tumor limited to one or both tubes." The tumor is T1c according to the pathologist. Is this two T1c primaries or one? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract as two primaries using Other Sites rule M8. This issue will be reviewed during the next update to the MP/H rules. |
N/A | N/A | 2008 |
|
|
20081009 | Reportability/Diagnostic Confirmation: If a physician signs a case out as "precancerous melanosis of the face" (8741/2) and there is no microscopic confirmation of the disease, is thisĀ a reportable clinical diagnosis? |
This case is reportable because the diagnosis of precancerous melanosis was stated by a recognized medical practitioner. Precancerous melanosis meets the reportable diagnosis criteria (See 2007 SEER Manual page 1). Assign diagnostic confirmation code 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Set the appropriate override flag for the SEER edit. |
N/A | Diagnostic confirmation | 2008 | |
|
|
20021125 | Histology (Pre-2007)--Testis: What code is used to represent the histology of "mixed germ cell tumor, embryonal carcinoma and mature teratoma" of the testis? See discussion. | Is the teratoma required to be described as "immature" or "malignant" in order to use the histology code of 9081/3 [mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma]? | For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:
Code the Histology field to 9081/3 [Teratocarcinoma, mixed embryonal carcinoma and teratoma], in both ICD-O-2 and ICD-O-3.
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. |
N/A | Histology | 2002 |
|
|
20130090 | MP/H Rules/Primary site/Histology--Colon/Rectum: How are the primary site and histology to be coded for a diagnosis of familial polyposis with malignant tumors in the sigmoid and rectum? See Discussion. | Preoperative diagnosis was familial polyposis with rectal and rectosigmoid cancer.
The pathology report from the colon resection showed:
Gross description: The mucosa of the colon is tan pink with polyposis throughout; more than 1000 tan sessile polyps.
Should this be a single primary per MP/H Rule M3, histology coded to 8220/3 [familial polyposis] per MP/H Rule H17, and primary site coded to C199? |
This case should be accessioned as a single primary. Code the primary site to the colon and rectum [C199] and the histology to adenocarcinoma in familial polyposis coli [8220/3] per MP/H Rule H17.
For cases of familial polyposis, when the rectosigmoid or rectum are involved, assign code C199 [colon and rectum]. When the rectosigmoid or rectum are not involved, assign code C189 [colon, NOS]. |
N/A | Histology, Primary site | 2013 |
|
|
20010044 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology/Date of Diagnosis: If a "suspicious" cytology is reportable only when a later positive biopsy or a physician's clinical impression of cancer supports the cytology findings, is the Date of Diagnosis field coded to the later confirmation date rather than to the date of the suspicious cytology? Is a suspicious "biopsy" handled the same way? |
Cytology reported as "suspicious" is not reportable. If the physician confirms the suspicious cytology by making a clinical diagnosis of malignancy, the Date of Diagnosis field is coded to the date of the clinical diagnosis, which may or may not be same date the cytology was performed. Without supporting clinical documentation, the case will remain non-reportable and will not be submitted to SEER. The supporting documentation can be a physician's statement that the patient has cancer, a scan or procedure that identifies cancer, or a positive biopsy. Suspicious "biopsies" are reportable according to SEER's list of ambiguous terms. Suspicious "cytologies" without supporting clinical statements are not. |
N/A | Date of diagnosis | 2001 | |
|
|
20031055 | Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/Diagnostic Confirmation: How would these fields be coded for a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma based on clinical findings only? See Discussion. |
We have a case of reported "cholangiocarcinoma" of the liver diagnosed only by a CT of the abdomen. There is no pathologic confirmation. CT ABD: Heterogeneous liver mass suspicious for cholangiocarcinoma; mass causes right portal & right hepatic vein occlusion & right and left biliary duct dilatation.... Should this be coded to cholangiocarcinoma by radiology alone and should it be liver as primary site? |
For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007: Code according to the prevailing medical opinion in this case. If no further information can be obtained, code as cholangiocarcinoma of the intrahepatic bile duct. 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. |
N/A | Diagnostic confirmation, Histology, Primary site | 2003 |
|
|
20010110 | Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Should we take the grade from a TNM staging form over a grade stated in a pathology report when the grade mentioned on the TNM staging form is a higher grade (e.g., Pathology report diagnosis is moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3+3=6, but the physician checked "poorly differentiated" on the TNM form)? | Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [moderatley differentiated]. Code from the pathology report over the TNM staging form. If you do not have access to the path report, use the grade from the TNM form. | N/A | N/A | 2001 |
Home
