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 10:13 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Cancer Site Category Data Item Category Year
20000256 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Melanoma: How do you code tumor size for a melanoma diagnosed by a positive lymph node biopsy when the primary site is coded C44.9 because no primary site was identified? See discussion. Should the size be 000 because no primary was found or 999 for unknown?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to 000 [No mass; no tumor found] when primary site is coded to C449.

 Melanoma N/A 2000
20061029

Recurrence (Pre-2007)--Colon: When there is no statement of recurrence on the abstract, is a colon tumor at the anastomosis site a recurrence of the previous colon cancer or a new primary?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If the cancer at the anastamosis site is more than two months after the previous colon cancer, abstract as a separate primary.

If the cancer at the anastamosis site is within two months of the original diagnosis and the histologies are the same, do not abstract as a separate primary.

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.

 Colon N/A 2006
20021172 EOD-Extension--Head & Neck: How much information is needed for a head and neck primary in order to code extension to localized versus unknown? What code is used to represent this field when the only information for a buccal cavity primary is a positive aspiration of the buccal mass?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Extension to 99 [Unknown] for this case until more information is received. The available information does not describe the primary site and there is a complete lack of staging information.

Head and neck cancers spread early and often to nodes. Do not code the EOD-Extension to localized when the information is as limited as it is for this example.

 Head & Neck N/A 2002
20000247 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: If there is residual tumor in the distal urethra on prostatectomy, does that mean there is distal urethral margin involvement? See discussion.

2/98 Prostate bx: Right apex, right mid and right base positive for adenocarcinoma.

6/1/98 Radical retropubic prostatectomy w/ bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Pathology: Residual adenocarcinoma in distal urethra, right lateral sections and posterior lobe. Right apical margin, other margins, seminal vesicles, and 7 pelvic LN negative for malignancy.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

For the example above, code the EOD-Pathologic Extension field to 34 [extending to apex] because most of the right side is involved.

The pathology report says all margins are free. The comment on residual tumor in the urethra, meant the first surgery did not completely remove tumor tissue from the urethra, it does not mean that tissue is at the margin.

 Prostate N/A 2000
20071009 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries/Laterality--Brain and CNS: How many primaries are to be abstracted and how is laterality to be coded for two meningiomas, one occurring at the midline and the other in the right termporal region? See Discussion. MRI of the brain shows two meningiomas: One is stated to be 'midline' (laterality code 9) and one is stated to be in the 'right' temporal region. The rules state if same site (C700), same histology & laterality is same side or one side unknown, then abstract as single primary. Based on this, the MRI findings would be one primary, but how should laterality be coded? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, abstract two primaries. The lateralities of both meningiomas are known. Right (code 1) and midline (code 9) are different lateralities. Brain and CNS N/A 2007
20120062

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Breast: How many primaries are accessioned if a patient has a history of breast cancer in 2006 treated with bilateral mastectomies and in 2011 is found to have invasive carcinoma in "breast tissue, right lumpectomy"? See Discussion.

Patient was originally diagnosed in June 2006, with right breast cancer and underwent lumpectomy and chemotherapy. This was followed by a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction in January of 2007 that showed no residual tumor in the breast but 1 positive right axillary lymph node. The patient started Arimidex in May 2007 and had ongoing follow-up.

In November 2011, the patient noted a "lump to her right upper reconstructed breast at approximately 2:00." Needle biopsy in December 2011 showed invasive carcinoma and the patient underwent a lumpectomy. The lumpectomy pathology report stated, "Breast tissue, right, lumpectomy: poorly differentiated infiltrating ductal cancer." There is no comparison of the current pathology to the previous pathology, as the previous lumpectomy/mastectomy was done at another facility. The patient is being treated at this facility with radiation as if this is a "recurrent/persistent right sided breast cancer."

Should this case be classified as a new primary because the pathology report indicates the malignancy was in breast tissue? Or is this actually a chest wall recurrence given the fact that the patient was previously treated with bilateral mastectomies? Should this case be treated as indicated in SINQ 20110111?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, accession two primaries, right breast cancer diagnosed in June 2006 and a subsequent right breast primary diagnosed in December 2011.

The steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Open the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Choose one of the three formats (i.e., flowchart, matrix or text). Go to the Breast MP rules because site specific rules exist for this primary.

Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS module, rule M4. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within a module. Accession two primaries, tumors diagnosed more than five (5) years apart are multiple primaries.

If the pathology report stated the tumor originated in residual breast tissue, then this is a new tumor and, therefore, a new primary per rule M5. If the pathology report stated the tumor arose in the chest wall and/or there is no designation of residual breast tissue, then this is a regional metastasis and not a new primary.

 Breast N/A 2012
20071005 EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate: When coding a prostate case with a date of diagnosis prior to 1995, is the EOD-Pathologic Extension-Prostate field left blank?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 1995, leave EOD-Pathologic Extension--Prostate field blank.

Code all EOD fields according to the EOD coding scheme in effect for that year of diagnosis.

 Prostate N/A 2007
20031001 EOD-Extension/EOD-Lymph Nodes--Cervix: How do you code these fields when the cancer extended to the pelvic wall and there are periaortic LN metastases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Assign extension code 65 for contiguous (direct) extension of tumor from the cervix to the pelvic wall. Assign extension code 85 only if the pelvic wall is involved with discontinuous extension from the cervix; i.e., the cervical tumor spread indirectly (through lymph or vascular channels) to the pelvic wall. Code the pelvic wall involvement in the Extension field and the periaortic lymph node involvement in the Lymph Node field. When the computer does the algorithm, it will look at the periaortic lymph nodes and report the summary stage as distant and the TNM stage group as IV because periarotic nodes are M1. Do not code the periaortic lymph nodes in both fields. This is stage IV, distant disease, due to the periaortic lymph node involvement (EOD lymph nodes code 6).

 Cervix Uteri N/A 2003
20021205 EOD-Extension--Melanoma: Is "erosion" synonymous with "ulceration" for melanoma cases?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

No, do not interpret the term "erosion" as a synonym for "ulceration" when coding the EOD-Extension field for melanoma. According to AJCC's melanoma curator, erosion is not necessarily the same as ulceration.

 Melanoma N/A 2002
20041010 Multiple Primaries--Lymphoma: How many primaries should we abstract when Single Versus Subsequent Primaries table indicates one primary but special pathological studies indicate two primaries? See Description. The patient had a malignant lymphoma, large B cell (9680) diagnosed in 2000. In 2003, he came in and had a spleen biopsy which showed follicular lymphoma (9690). These are the same NHL, according to the table lookup. However, the pathologist states in 2003, "Special stains now show a kappa clonal lymphoma. Since the first diagnosis was a lambda monoclonal lymphoma, this is not felt to be a recurrence of the original lymphoma."

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2010:Abstract the example above as two primaries. Hematologic malignancies (including lymphoma) and solid tumors are handled differently when determining the number of primaries. For hematologic malignancies, take the physician's opinion into account. Use the Single Versus Subsequent Primaries of Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Diseases table as an aid when there is insufficient information available.

For solid tumors, follow the multiple primary rules in the SEER Program Code Manual.

For cases diagnosed 2010 forward, 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.

 Lymphoma N/A 2004