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 20:48 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031141 Priorities/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Breast: Which part of the pathology report takes precedence when there is a discrepancy between the final path diagnosis and the CAP summary? See Description. For example, breast primary: Final path states "14/18 nodes (+) for tumor & separate matted aggregate of axillary nodes (+) for tumor. Subpectoral lymph node (+) for mets ca. Path Gross states "18 separate lymph nodes identified...many (+) for tumor grossly. Aggregate of matted lymph nodes within axillary tissue (+) for tumor. Multiple separate lymph nodes submitted." CAP Micro Summary lists "20/16 nodes examined/positive." What is correct number of nodes positive & nodes examined in this case? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: The final pathology diagnosis has highest priority. The CAP summary is second priority. However, you always use the best information available. If the final path diagnosis is vague or unclear, information from the CAP summary can be used. In the case example, the total lymph node count from the final path diagnosis is unclear and the CAP summary provides clarification. Code the number of lymph nodes positive as 16 and the number examined 20. Subpectoral lymph nodes are regional nodes for breast primaries. Breast N/A 2003
20210033

Reportability--Liver: Is a diagnosis of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-Treatment Response (LR-TR) viable nodule seen on imaging and treated with Y-90 radiotherapy reportable? See Discussion.

Patient was initially diagnosed in 2017 with LR-5 lesions in segments 3 and 7 of liver and treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Routine scans in 2019 show no evidence of residual or recurrent disease.

Surveillance imaging in 2020 identifies LR-TR viable segment 3 treatment zone with slowly growing arterially-enhancing nodule as well as increasing arterial enhancement in the neighboring parenchyma. No new LR-4 or LR-5 observations. Patient is not a surgical candidate but is treated with Y-90 radiotherapy.

Per Rule M10, tumors diagnosed more than 1 year apart are multiple primaries. However, there is no clear clinical statement of malignancy in this case.

Do not report LR-TR viable as a new primary. LR-TR viable is a component of the Li-RADS Treatment Response algorithm designed to assess response for path-proven or presumed (e.g., LR-4, LR-5, LR-M) malignancy after locoregional treatment for hepatocellular cancer. LR-TR viable indicates it met the criteria as a viable tumor.

 N/A N/A 2021
20021141 EOD-Extension--Lung: When only minimal information is available, such as scans and needle biopsies, should EOD extension be coded to localized or unknown? See discussion.

The patient was diagnosed with non-small carcinoma of the lung by needle biopsy of the right upper lobe Feb. 2, 2001. History revealed that CT performed prior to needle bx showed 2 right sided lung lesions and right hilar adenopathy. Chest x-ray following needle bx showed irregular opacity within the RML appears unchanged. Soft tissue prominence in the azygos region, possibly related LN enlargement. This is the only information available.

Should we code extension as 30 [localized, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 99 [unknown] if no additional information is available for this case. Because the second lesion in the right lung could be malignant, the extension code might be 77 [separate tumor nodule(s) in different lobe]. With the possibility of a more extensive stage, the status of the hilar lymph nodes is also not clear. The abstracted information is insufficient to stage this case.

 Lung N/A 2002
20021201 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent this field for a lymphoma with retroperitoneal lymph node involvement and splenomegaly?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Per AJCC, code spleen involvement which is demonstrated by:

1. Unequivocal palpable splenomegaly alone.

2. Equivocal palpable splenomegaly with radiologic confirmation (ultrasound or CT).

3. Enlargement or multiple focal defects that are neither cystic nor vascular (radiologic enlargement alone is inadequate).

If the spleen is proven to be involved, code extension for this case as 20 [Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm; Stage II].

If the spleen is not proven to be involved, code extension as 10 [Involvement of a single lymph node region; Stage I].

 Lymphoma N/A 2002
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.

 Cervix Uteri N/A 2002
20041038 Reportability--Bladder: Is "low grade papillary urothelial neoplasm with no evidence of invasion" reportable to SEER? "Neoplasm" means "new growth," not malignancy. A low grade papillary urothelial NEOPLASM with no evidence of invasion [8130/1] is not reportable to SEER. However, a low grade papillary urothelial CARCINOMA with no evidence of invasion [8130/2] is reportable. Bladder N/A 2004
20000438 EOD-Extension/SEER Summary Stage 2000--Kidney/Eye: What codes are used to represent these fields for simultaneous bilateral Wilms tumor or simultaneous bilateral retinoblastoma?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 85 [Metastasis] and the SEER Summary Stage 2000 field to 7 [Distant] for both types of tumor. Each kidney and each eye are staged separately in the AJCC, 6th ed., but for SEER we would abstract these diagnoses as one case and code the EOD and stage fields to distant to reflect the involvement of both eyes or both kidneys.

 Retinoblastoma, Wilm's Tumor N/A 2000
20021082

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Primary site/EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How many primaries are represented by an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of mouth with in situ squamous cell carcinoma involvement of the frenulum?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to C04.9 [floor of mouth]. Because the cancer did not INVADE into a neighboring site (through wall, through soft tissue), it just spread along the mucosa (in situ) to involve the frenulum, this is one primary.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, in situ extension via mucosal spread to the frenulum is ignored for purposes of coding EOD-Extension.

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.

 Head & Neck N/A 2002
20091025

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Urinary: How should we handle urinary tract tumors diagnosed before the MP rules went into effect when determining the number of primaries to report primaries? How do you apply rules M5, M6 and M8 when an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur before and after the effective date of these rules? See Discussion.

Example: Patient with a prior in situ carcinoma of the bladder in 11/89, left ureter papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 5/05, left renal pelvis papillary transition cell carcinoma in situ diagnosed in 8/07 and invasive bladder carcinoma diagnosed in 3/08. When an invasive bladder tumor and other urinary site tumors occur, do you stop with the bladder at rule M5 and M6 never reaching M8?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Use the 2007 MP/H rules for urinary sites to assess diagnoses made in 2007-2014. Use the multiple tumors module to compare a diagnosis in 2007-2014 to an earlier diagnosis.

For the example above, start by comparing the left renal pelvis diagnosis in 8/07 to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M8. The 8/07 renal pelvis diagnosis is not a new primary. Next, compare the 3/08 bladder tumor to the earlier left ureter primary diagnosed 5/05. Start with rule M3. Stop at rule M5. The 3/08 bladder tumor is a new primary because it is an invasive diagnosis following an in situ diagnosis. Use only the more recent of the two earlier urinary diagnoses for comparison. Do not compare the 2007 and later diagnoses to the 11/89 in situ bladder primary in this case.

 N/A N/A 2009
20000418 Measured Thickness/EOD-Extension--Melanoma: If the Clark's level is not provided, can it be estimated using the depth of invasion provided in the pathology report and associating that number with the Clark's levels identified in the SEER Summary Staging Guide?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No. Do not use the SEER Summary Stage Guide or any other guide to derive an estimated Clark's level from the thickness identified in the pathology report. The two measurements need to come directly from the pathology report. Each is coded separately in EOD. Thickness is collected in a separate field so we can capture the actual measurement stated in the pathology report. This has made it possible for us to group depth of invasion for analysis purposes in any manner we might wish. In addition, we can always collapse this information to the Summary Stage or TNM using the AJCC rules. AJCC rules use both depth of invasion and thickness in determining pathologic staging, and, if there is an inconsistency between them, the rules say code to the higher T classification, that is, the least favorable finding.

 Melanoma N/A 2000