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: 10/07/2026 21:01 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20031026 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: If there is no mention of vocal cord mobility, do we code indicating normal vocal cord mobility or do we code EOD-Extension to a "localized, NOS?" See discussion. How do we code EOD-extension for the following tumor of the supraglottic larynx? Limited stage small cell cancer of epiglottis per discharge signout. Physical exam revealed swelling of anterior aspect of epiglottis and narrowing of epiglottis. Neck without palpable masses. Laryngoscopy with biopsy and esophagoscopy showed extensive tumor involving entire laryngeal surface of epiglottis, extending onto aryepiglottic fold, onto false vocal cords and onto left true vocal cord. Ventricle on left side was obliterated with tumor. Right true vocal cord free of tumor. There is no information regarding vocal cord mobility. Biopsy of the left true vocal cord was negative. Should EOD-extension be coded to 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS] or 50 [Localized NOS]? For cases diagnosed 1998-2003, if vocal cord mobility is not mentioned, code as normal mobility. Code EOD-extension for the example case as 20 [Tumor involves more than one subsite of supraglottis without fixation or NOS]. Head & Neck N/A 2003
20110131 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does a change in the 2008 diagnosis from refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB I) to a subsequent diagnosis of RAEB II in 2011 need to be reported to the state if the Hematopoietic Database indicates these diagnoses represent the same primary?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

RAEB I and RAEB II [9983/3] have the same histology code per the Heme DB. They are synonyms. Per Rule M2 one abstracts a single primary when there is a single histology. There is no change to report to the state regarding histology.

The I and II designators indicate the number of blasts in the bone marrow. In RAEB, the number of blasts measures the severity of the disease and is also a predictor of the chance of a genetic transformation to AML.

In this case, the patient's disease has progressed to a more severe phase - similar to a solid tumor progressing from Stage II to Stage III.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms N/A 2011
20110130 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: Should a July 2011 left lower lobe mass with adenocarcinoma be accessioned as an additional primary per Rule M7 or as the same primary per Rule M12 if it is diagnosed subsequent to a September 2010 right upper lobe/right middle lobe lobectomy with clear cell adenocarcinoma in one nodule and adenocarcinoma in another nodule? See Discussion.

09/2010: RUL/RML lobectomy: Two separate nodules. One nodule showed clear cell adenocarcinoma, and the other showed adenocarcinoma (NOS). Potential brain metastasis per scan. Patient also received chemotherapy. These are two separate primaries per rule M11.

07/2011: New LLL mass + satellite nodule, biopsy of LLL mass compatible with adenocarcinoma (NOS).

Is the 07/2011 an additional new primary per rule M7? Or is it the same primary as the 09/2010 adenocarcinoma per rule M12?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later: The 2011 diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, NOS in the left lower lobe lung is a separate primary.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules manual. For a lung primary, use the Lung Multiple Primary rules to determine the number of primaries.

The 2010 right lung bi-lobectomy showed two separate tumors that were determined to be two primaries: clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] and adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3]. The histology of the new left lung mass is adenocarcinoma, NOS [8140/3].

Start at Rule M3 using the MULTIPLE TUMORS module because this patient has more than one tumor. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the module (i.e., from Rule M3 to Rule M12 in this case). Stop at the first rule that applies to the case you are processing. This patient has two tumors in each lung with ICD-O-3 histology codes that are different at the second (xxxx) digit. Abstract the LLL adenocarcinoma as a new primary [C343, 8140/3].

The patient has two tumors in each lung. The right lung showed adenocarcinoma and clear cell adenocarcinoma. The two tumors in the left lung were both adenocarcinomas. Clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310] on the right is different at the second digit from adenocarcinoma [8140] on the left. Rule M12 cannot be applied to this case, because Rule M7 is the first rule that applies to this case when processing the rules in consecutive order.

Lung N/A 2011
20130187 Reportability: Is a clinically diagnosed Stage III malignant thymoma reportable when the post-neoadjuvant resection showed spindle cell thymoma? See Discussion. A thymoma is described by the medical oncologist at the time of the initial diagnosis as a malignant thymoma, Stage III. The patient had neoadjuvant CAP chemotherapy followed by a resection. Following the resection, the pathologist stated the diagnosis was spindle cell thymoma. A malignant thymoma is reportable. Based on the information provided, a reportable diagnosis (malignant thymoma) was made by a physician and the patient was treated for this diagnosis. Because there is no mention of the initial diagnosis being amended based on the resection specimen's pathology report, assume the initial diagnosis is still valid. N/A N/A 2013
20020050

EOD Clinical Extension--Prostate: Can you assign code 15 if there is no TURP and no physical exam? See discussion.

[Code 15 = Tumor identified by needle biopsy, e.g. for elevated PSA, (T1c)]

 Prostate case: Elevated PSA, Prostate u/s: no abnormal findings, Prostate biopsy: adenocarcinoma. Can this be clinically coded as 15? According to Prostate EOD Coding Guide (6/2001), code 15 requires documentation that the physical exam was negative, but in this case, we have no physical info.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD Clinical Extension field to 30-34 when there is no documentation saying that the physical examination was negative.

 Prostate N/A 2002
20020060 Terminology/EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Lung: Can the term "opacity" be used to code the size of the primary lung tumor when it is given a size in an imaging study but the "opacity" is not referred to as being suspicious for cancer? See discussion. Example: How do you code tumor size for a lung primary in which the patient had a CT of the chest that describes a "4 cm opacity in the RUL of the lung." A biopsy of the RUL lung is positive for carcinoma? Would your answer be different if the opacity was described as being "suspicious for carcinoma"?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 999 [Not stated] for the example given above. However, if the opacity was described as a "mass" or as "suspicious for cancer," the size could be coded to 040 [4 cm].

 Lung N/A 2002
20020056 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Bladder: Is a 1998 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, followed by a 2001 squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder reportable as a second primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Yes. This case is reportable as a second primary. The rule in the SEER Program Code Manual says that invasive bladder cancers with histology codes 8120-8130 [papillary, transitional] are always coded as a recurrence and are an exception to the multiple primary rule. Squamous cell carcinoma [8070] is not a part of that exception.

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.

 Bladder N/A 2002
20081120 MP/H Rules--Sarcoma: How many primaries should be abstracted for chondrosarcoma of right toe in 2002, of right lower leg in 2006 and right tibia in 2007? See Discussion. A patient had a myxoid chondrosarcoma of the right toe in 2002. This was amputated and staged as T2 - high grade. Patient had a recurrence in the lower right leg in 2006. At this time he had a below knee amputation. The tumor in 2006 was stated to be similar histologically to the 2002 tumor with pathologic comparison done. Then in 2007 the patient presents with pain in right knee and stump. CT says compatible with recurrent disease, but no copies of path sent. Patient then had an above knee amputation, with diagnosis of clinically recurrent chondrosarcoma of tibia. How many primaries should be abstracted? Is 2007 diagnosis a new primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

Abstract two primaries in this case, 2002 and 2007.

The first primary was diagnosed in 2002. The 2006 diagnosis would not be a new primary according to the rules in effect at that time (2004 SEER manual, page 11, rule 5, exception 1).

Use the current MP/H rules to compare the 2007 diagnosis to the 2002 diagnosis. Start with rule M3 and stop at rule M10. The 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary.

 Sarcoma N/A 2008
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
20091122 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries-Brain: Does a glioblastoma multiforme following a low grade glioma (oligodendroglioma) represent a new primary? See Discussion.

In 2/08 patient underwent resection of tumor of right frontal lobe. Path diagnosis showed a low grade glioma, favor low grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II). In 02/09 biopsy of a left thalamic mass showed glioblastoma mutiforme. Per rule M6 glioblastoma multiforme following a glial tumor is a single primary. Per path diagnosis, the first tumor represented a low grade glioma. However, oligodendroglioma is not on the glial branch of chart 1 in the MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, glioblastoma multiforme following oligodendroglioma are multiple primaries according to rule M8. Rule M6 does not apply. M6 applies only to glial tumors as listed in chart 1. Chart 1 is based on the WHO classification. The WHO classification separates oligodendroglial tumors from glial tumors. Brain and CNS N/A 2009