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: 10/08/2026 04:35 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20021150 SEER Guidelines Over Time: Should we apply the current guidelines to previously missed older cases now being reported to the central registry? See discussion.

1. We receive "straggler" cases for coding that were diagnosed when previous coding schemes and guidelines were applicable. When a specific guideline is in place for a given time period and is later changed in some way, we try to use the specific guideline that was in place at the time of diagnosis when coding the incoming case. However, it is not always possible to remember or to be able to access those old guidelines.

2. There are situations when coding old cases that have no applicable guideline for the older diagnosis years but current SEER documentation informs the coder how to handle the situation. For example, in the SEER Program Code Manual (3rd ed), 3 new guidelines were added for coding of differentiation. There were no guidelines in the previous SEER manual that specifically covered those situations. Should we use the current rules in coding differentiation on the older incoming case?

 Code all fields according to the instructions that were in effect at the time the case was diagnosed. If the old guidelines are unavailable or non-existent, code the case in the current scheme. The year the case was abstracted will indicate that the case was a late entry into the system and that could account for the differences in coding seen by a reviewer. N/A N/A 2002
20210038

Update to current manual/First course treatment--Neoadjuvant treatment: How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded when neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans but treatment was never completed. See Discussion.

Example: Breast case where first course treatment plan is neoadjuvant therapy and surgery after. The patient was hospitalized during neoadjuvant therapy, elected hospice, and later died, so the neoadjuvant therapy was never completed, surgery not done. How are the 2021 neoadjuvant therapy fields coded in this situation as neoadjuvant therapy and surgery were part of first course plans. I coded neoadjuvant therapy to 2 - started but not completed, but there are no codes to properly explain the clinical response and therapy treatment effect as the patient did not complete neoadjuvant therapy. Should I use code 9 for clinical response and treatment effect or should this be left blank for this particular case?

Assign code 8 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Clinical Response in this case. We will update the SEER manual to allow code 2, in addition to code 1, in Neoadjuvant therapy when Clinical Response is coded 8. We will also add instructions covering a case such as this one.

Assign code 7 for Neoadjuvant Therapy--Treatment Effect and use text fields to record the details. We will add instructions to the manual for this scenario.

 N/A First course treatment 2021
20031138 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Testis: Should this field be coded to the gross pathological size when the pathology states "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion"? See Description. Gross describes a testicle that measures a 4cm. Path micro states "several large atypical cells...These never form a true mass. Path comment states, "tumor dimension essentially the same as testicle, but is not appropriate in this case because the infiltrate does not form a mass lesion." For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the tumor size as 999 [Not stated] for the case example above. Keep in mind that tumor size is not used in analysis for certain sites such as testis, stomach, colon & rectum, ovary, prostate, and urinary bladder. Tumor size is important for analysis for certain sites such as lung, bone, breast, and kidney. N/A N/A 2003
20021078 Primary Site: How do you code the primary site when the tumor is identified in a bladder that was reconstructed using a stomach augmentation procedure and the pathology report states, "Bladder/prostate: adenocarcinoma arising within gastric mucosa, with the following features: highly infiltrative through the bladder wall"? Code the Primary Site field to bladder [C67.9]. Code the location of the tumor as the primary site. N/A Primary site 2002
20170057

Grade: If the biopsy site is a higher grade, is the grade of the biopsy used over the grade of the surgical resection? See Discussion.

When coding tumor grade, our pathologists have told us to code grade based on the specimen from the most definitive surgery or with the most amount of tissue, and that coding grade from the biopsy would not be appropriate even if it is a higher grade than from the surgical resection. Coding of solid tumors Instruction 5 states: If there is more than one grade, code the highest grade within the applicable system. Code the highest grade even if it is only a focus. Code grade in the following priority order using the first applicable system.

For cases diagnosed prior to 2018: Use the Grade Coding Instructions to code grade. The instructions are intended to standardize coding of grade across the U.S. and to eliminate differences in opinion between pathologists. Standardized coding ensures that data can be combined and used for statistical analysis.

You may code grade based on the biopsy when following the grade coding instructions.

 N/A N/A 2017
20031129 Primary Site: How is this field coded for cholangiocarcinoma involving the intrapancreatic bile duct? Code the primary site as C24.0 [Extrahepatic bile duct, includes Common bile duct] for a cholagiocarcinoma originating in the common bile duct. A portion of the common bile duct is within the head of the pancreas: The intrapancreatic segment of the common bile duct. N/A Primary site 2003
20220005

Reportability--Ambiguous Terminology:  Can the term “at most” preceding a statement of a reportable diagnosis be used to accession a case? See Discussion.

A January 2022 endometrium biopsy and curettage both show final diagnosis of “mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.”  Any subsequent surgery path is unlikely to provide clarification.

Do not report the case in this scenario based on the diagnosis alone of mild cytologic atypia and glandular crowding, at most endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia.  "At most" is not an ambiguous term for reportability.  It appears that "at most" in this case refers to the worst possible option within other possible options (differential diagnosis).  Differential diagnoses are "educated guesses" or hypotheses and are usually not reportable unless proven otherwise.  As there is no clear statement of the diagnosis in this case, we recommend that you seek additional information, for example, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and patient care.

 N/A N/A 2022
20000277 Ambiguous Terminology: Should SEER's lists of ambiguous terminology be modified to reflect how pathologists and radiologists actually use these terms? See discussion. Pathologists and radiologists say the term "suggestive" is used to describe a lesion that may be malignant, and the term "suspicious" is not used to describe lesions that may be malignant. According to the physician director of our Breast Center the FDA governs the use of terminology, and the term "highly suggestive" instead of "highly suspicious" must be used if there is a greater chance that a mass is malignant.

We recognize that the way clinicians and registrars speak is often different, and that the differences vary from region to region.

Our Medical Advisory Board reviewed the lists of ambiguous terminology before they were included in the third edition of the SEER EOD and the SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2004. Since that time, specific terminology has been mandated for describing mammography results. We know some of these terms are discrepant with our ambiguous terminology list.

As of 2007, the standard setters (CoC, NPCR, SEER and CCCR) all use the same ambiguous terminology list. Changes to the list must be approved by the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee.

 N/A N/A 2000
20020015 Histology (Pre-2001): For cases diagnosed before 1/1/01, what code is used to represent the histology "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma"? For tumors diagnosed prior to 2001, code the Histology field to 8041/3 [small cell carcinoma] for "small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma". N/A Histology 2002
20120081

Reportability: Is VIN II-III reportable?

For cases diagnosed 2021 and later

VIN II-III is reportable based on ICD-O-3.2 which lists squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, grade II as 8077/2 making it reportable. Also see SINQ 20120094.

 N/A N/A 2012