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 17:19 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20000261 EOD-Extension--Lymphoma: What code is used to represent a non-Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with involvement of an extralymphatic organ and lymph nodes on the opposite side of the diaphragm? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Code the EOD-Extension field to 31 [30 + localized involvement of an extralymphatic organ or site; Stage III E]. Lymphoma N/A 2000
20021138 Grade, Differentiation--All Sites: What code is used to represent this field when a pathology report describes a tumor as a low grade neoplasm consistent with a specific histologic type (e.g., Low grade neoplasm consistent with carcinoid)? Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 2 [Low grade]. N/A N/A 2002
20071022 Reportability--Hematopoietic, NOS: If the bone marrow biopsy diagnosis is not reportable and cytogenetics studies indicate no clonal abnormality, is a case reportable if only the flow cytometry results show a "small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia"? See Discussion.

Bone marrow bx final diagnosis: Markedly hypercellular marrow consisting primarily of erythroid hyperplasia and, also, diffusely distributed small lymphocytes. Addendum comment: Flow cytometry demonstrated a small monoclonal B-lymphocyte population consistent with a lymphoid component of a lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma or Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia. Addendum comment: Cytogenetic analysis states no clonal abnormality was apparent. Normal female karyotype.

Question 1: Is this case reportable, and if so, what histology?

Question 2: Is there a hierarchy when flow cytometry and cytogenetics are done, but do not agree?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:This case is not reportable at this point. A lymphoid component is not equivalent to a diagnosis of a reportable disease. In order to be a malignant, reportable disease, the condition must be monoclonal and irreversible. Cytogenetics were negative for malignancy (i.e. no monoclonal abnormality identified which is the criteria used to establish this diagnosis). Use all information available when determining reportability.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/10 and later, refer to the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Case Reportability and Coding Manual and the Hematopoietic Database (Hematopoietic DB) provided by SEER on its website to research your question. If those resources do not adequately address your issue, submit a new question to SINQ.

 N/A N/A 2007
20021093 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Colon: When an adenocarcinoma is stated to be arising in an adenoma and the "tumor size" stated in the final pathologic diagnosis is the same size as the mass described in the gross description, should we assume that the entire polyp has been totally/near totally replaced by tumor and code the tumor size stated in the final path diagnosis?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as stated by the pathologist in the final pathologic diagnosis. If the size of the tumor is the same as the size of the polyp, assume the polyp was completely replaced by tumor.

 Colon N/A 2002
20021165 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--All Sites: Is there a hierarchy for using information from clinical tests (scans, radiography) to determine clinical tumor size? When the size on a radiographic report prior to pathologic diagnosis is smaller than the size of the tumor on the radiographic report that is post pathologic diagnosis, which tumor size should be used? See discussion.

Which size should be used for these examples?

1) Tumor size on a mammogram is smaller than the tumor size on an ultrasound.

2) CT of the lung reveals a 2.5 cm RUL malignancy in June. A biopsy in July confirms a malignancy. A CT is done in August prior to initiating RT which reveals a 3.1 cm RUL nodule.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Generally, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to the largest size identified in any scan. Use the largest tumor size for most cases. There is no hierarchy for multiple imaging studies, with the exception of the two situations represented in the question examples.

1). Code the size stated on the mammogram, even if that size is smaller than the one specified on the ultrasound. Generally the mammogram size is more accurate for breast cases than ultrasound.

2). Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 2.5 cm. In this example, the second scan was the same type as the first. Usually there is not that much of a difference in size between the same tests, unless the tumor has an aggressive histology. The example does not mention the histology. With certain histologies, such as small cell of the lung, a rapid growth in a short amount of time is the normal process. The fact that the size increased that much in a short period of time, using the same type of scan, is an indication of a rapidly growing tumor. It would be better to use the size on the initial scan to code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor.

 N/A N/A 2002
20000554 EOD-Extension--Stomach: What code is used to represent this field for a stomach primary described as linitis plastica?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 30 [Localized, NOS], unless more information is known about the extent of tumor involvement. Coding the Histology field to 8142/3 [Linitis plastica] and the Size of Primary Tumor field to 998 [Diffuse; widespread; 3/4 or more: Linitis plastica] identifies this diagnosis.

In the EOD-Extension field, the depth of invasion is the important characteristic to be coded. The 10 digit EOD corresponds to the AJCC Staging Manual in which the "T" is based on level of invasion. While a diagnosis of linitis plastica indicates a worse prognosis, it does not define the extent of infiltration. There is no luminal mass with linitis plastica. Instead, the entire gastric wall is thickened by tumor.

 Stomach N/A 2000
20000533

EOD-Clinical Extension--Prostate: In the SEER EOD manual, there is a list of terms to distinguish apparent from inapparent tumor for prostate primaries. Are terms in the "maybe" category and are terms not on the list clinically inapparent or clinically apparent when there is no physician staging of the case? See discussion.

The rectal examination states that there is "asymmetrical enlargement of the prostate, firmness over the right lobe" and the physical exam impression is extensive carcinoma of right lobe. A needle biopsy of the right lobe was positive. "Enlarged" is on SEER's list of clinically inapparent terms; "asymmetrical" and "firm, NOS" are on the "maybe" list.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

On the basis of the physical exam impression, code the EOD-Clinical Extension field to 20 [involvement of one lobe, NOS] for this case. Although the medical record did not provide a physician's staging of the case as clinically apparent, the physician did suspect carcinoma prior to the biopsy.

If clarifying stage information is missing and the term is in the "maybe" category or the term is not on the list, then code extension as 30 [localized, NOS] for cases that appear localized.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20000509 EOD-Extension--Small Intestine: How do we interpret a pathology description of "extending through serosa and forming masses in the periserosal tissue" for a jejunum primary?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension field to 55 [Invasion of/through serosa and adjacent connective tissue]. The description states the tumor extended through the serosa into periserosal tissue. The periserosal tissue in this case refers to adjacent connective tissue lying exterior to the intestinal wall and not the (sub)serosal tissue that lies exterior to the muscularis but inferior to the serosa. Analyze each case individually since pathologists are not consistent when using the above terminology.

 N/A N/A 2000
20140017

Multiple Primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: 2012 path report for removal of an "axillary mass" which consists of 80% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 20% follicular lymphoma. In the original manual, Module 6 instructed us to code as a single primary, DLBCL. However, the multiple primary calculator says each disease is a separate primary. When I looked them up in the data base, I did not get an option to review a current manual. Can you please advise?

Updated May 2026

The Multiple Primaries calculator is not applicable for this case.

In this case, there are two NHLs in the same location at the same time. Apply Rule M4, this is one primary. Per Note 7 under Rule M4, go to Rules PH11and PH15 to assign primary site and histology.

Rule PH11 states to code to the site of the origin (axillary mass) and to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (9680/3) when DLBCL and any other non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular in this case) are present in the same location at the same time.

Code as a single primary with histology Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2014
20031039

EOD-Clinical Extension--Liver: How do the segments of the liver described by AJCC Manual correspond to the lobes of the liver described by the SEER EOD Manual? See Description.

CT described hepatocellular ca involvement of the liver with nodules identified in segments 5 and 7. Would EOD-extension be coded to 30 [multiple tumors (one lobe)]?

Segments 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the left lobe of the liver. Segments 5, 6, 7 and 8 correspond to the right lobe of the liver. Segment 1 is the caudate lobe, which has completely different drainage and vascularization, is separate from the larger right and left lobes.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Since segments 5 and 7 are both in the right lobe, assign EOD-extension code 30 for the case above, unless there is mention of vascular invasion. Be sure to record the size of the largest primary tumor.

Tumor size and vascular invasion are the most important factors for AJCC 6th edition staging.

 N/A N/A 2003