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 18:02 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20210026

Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms--Lymphoma: Is a case initially submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (lymphoma, NOS) with a second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) a single primary or multiple primaries? See Discussion.

The following cases were submitted to the central registry as separate primaries. First case submitted as C772 with histology coded 9591/3 (Lymphoma, NOS). Second case submitted as C162 with histology coded 9699/3 (MALT Lymphoma).

Sequence 01 - 5/2016, Excisional biopsy pancreatic tail lymph node: suspicious for malignant B-cell lymphoma. No treatment recommended or administered.

Sequence 02 - 2/2019, Stomach biopsy: MALT Lymphoma. Unknown if treatment was recommended or administered. Biopsy was only at this facility.

Using the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Multiple Primaries/Histology rules, Rule M7 makes this a single primary. Note 4 instructs to change the histology of the initial abstract to the more specific histology (9699/3). If this is done, they would be multiple primaries per the exception within Rule M2. Should the histology on sequence 01 be changed to the MALT lymphoma and the cases would be multiple primaries or is this a single primary?

Abstract two primaries and assign

Primary 1: C772, 9699/3

Primary 2: C162, 9699/3

Per Rule M7, you would change the first case to histology 9699/3 based on Note 4 under Rule M7, Note 4: Change the histology code on the original abstract to the more specific histology when the original diagnosis is in your registry database. Use previous editions of ICD-O (i.e., ICD-O-1, ICD-O-2) or the Hematopoietic Database to assign the code applicable to the year of diagnosis for the more specific histology.

Per Rule M2 this would be the same primary based on both being the same histology; however, there is an exception for MALT lymphomas (9699/3), which states: Abstract multiple primaries when a nodal MALT (C770-779, 9699/3) occurs before or after an extranodal MALT (all other sites, 9699/3).

 Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms, Lymphoma N/A 2021
20170017

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Liver: How many primaries of the same site and histology are reported if tumors appear years apart but neither is surgically removed? See Discussion.

Patient has an April 2009 biopsy proven diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma with a single liver mass in segment 4 that was treated with TACE and systemic chemotherapy. The treated lesion was stated to be stable in subsequent scans performed between 2010 and late 2015.

December 2015 imaging identified a new mass in the left hepatic lobe consistent with cholangiocarcinoma. Is the 2015 tumor a new primary?

In auditing files for expected (but not received) abstracts due from facilities, we've observed these types of cases not being consistently reported as multiple primaries.

Abstract as a single primary. The 2009 liver tumor remained "stable" following treatment and the patient was never disease free.

 N/A N/A 2017
20010052 Grade, Differentiation--Unknown Site: Is grade coded to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] for all unknown primaries? Most unknown primaries would be coded to grade 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the Grade, Differentiation field unless the case is coded to one of the histologies for which the grade is implied, such as undifferentiated carcinoma, NOS [802034]. 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
20010116 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Corpus Uteri: If both the width and depth of the tumor are provided, do we code the largest dimension in the tumor size field? If the width dimension is not provided, can we code the depth of the tumor in the tumor size field? See discussion. Example: An endometrial primary is described as having, "a soft lobulated tumor diffusely involving the entire endometrium, extending 2.0 cm into the myometrium."

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [unknown] for this case because this field is supposed to reflect the dimension for tumor width and not tumor depth. Tumor depth is coded in the EOD-Extension field.

 Corpus uteri N/A 2001
20020053 EOD-Extension--Meninges: How do you code extension for a malignant meningioma that invades into the adjacent brain tissue?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 60. Code 60 is defined as a brain tumor that extends into the meninges. It is also the appropriate code to use for a tumor that extends from the meninges to the brain.

 Brain and CNS N/A 2002
20000846

EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Bladder: Are "perivesical nodules" coded in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field or are they discontinuous extension and coded in the EOD-Extension field?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code "perivesical nodules" in the EOD-Lymph Nodes field as involvement of regional lymph nodes. Each gross nodule of metastatic carcinoma in the fat surrounding an organ is counted as one positive regional lymph node.

 Bladder N/A 2000
20000839

Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Thyroid: Does the rule in the 3rd Edition of the SEER Program Code Manual apply to cases diagnosed before 1998 that states if there are two separate carcinomas in the thyroid, one papillary and the other follicular, it is one primary and coded to the combination code 8340/3 [Papillary and follicular carcinoma]? See discussion.

If the rule applies to cases diagnosed before 1998, does SEER plan to ask that cases diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded?

The rule applies to tumors diagnosed 1998-2006. The rule is not retroactive. At this time, SEER does not plan to ask that tumors diagnosed prior to 1998 be recoded.

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.

 Thyroid N/A 2000
20021030 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: Why was the decision made not to code all "3-component differentiation systems" the same way that Bloom-Richardson is coded? For example, SEER codes a low grade BR to 1 for the Differentiation field and a low grade for other grading systems to 2. See discussion. Our Pathologist Consultant agrees with SEER's guideline to code the Bloom-Richardson and B&R modifications of low, intermediate and high to 1, 2 and 3 respectively and thinks all 3-component systems should be coded that same way because it better represents the differentiation of the tumor. In his opinion, coding all other 3-component systems to a differentiation of 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is overstating the degree of differentiation. The rules for coding histology are approved and used by all of the major standard setters through agreements reached in the NAACCR Uniform Data Standards Committee. This issue is under review by our medical advisors and a special committee. Changes will be taken to the Uniform Data Standards Committee for review and approval. N/A N/A 2002
20010162 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: Should the code 001 in tumor size be used for tumors described as having "focal" involvement? See discussion.

Is tumor size coded to 001 for the following examples:

Example 1: Focal adenoca in left lobe on prostatectomy.

Example 2: Multifocal ductal carcinoma of breast on mastectomy.

Example 1 and 2: There is insufficient information in the examples to determine whether EOD-Size of Primary Tumor should be coded to 001.

The instructions are that code 001 is used for a microscopic focus or foci of tumor only. That means that the tumor is small enough that it could not be seen by the naked eye, nor would it be palpable. Be careful with the term "focal" because it is most often used to describe tumor cells grouped or concentrated in one area as in example 1. There is no implication that this focus was microscopic only. Was it mentioned in the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology report? If so, it is not coded to 001. Was it palpable? If so, it is not coded to 001.

Example 2 cites a multifocal breast cancer. Again, did the pathologist visualize the cancer (was it reported on the gross or macroscopic portion of the pathology?) If so, do not use code 001. Was the lesion palpable? If so, do not use code 001.

 N/A N/A 2001