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: 04/22/2026 15:09 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20061057 CS Extension--Lung: Can extension be coded to 10 (Tumor confined to one lung) when either an autopsy or a CT scan describes the tumor as a mass of a specified size located in one lobe of the lung without any description of extension and no available TNM provided? See Discussion.

Example 1: Lung primary within the right lower lobe described clinically as greater than 3 cm on scan but was found to be 3 cm at autopsy.

Example 2: CT scan February shows 2 cm mass in RUL.

In both cases, the only tumor description was the size of tumor without any information regarding extension.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Yes, assign code 10 [Tumor confined to one lung] for a mass in one lobe when none of the descriptions in codes 11 to 80 are documented.

 2006
20021060 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor: The EOD Manual instructs us not to code the size of a cyst. Can we code the size of tumor lesions described as being multicystic, multiloculated, or as a complex mass with cystic areas? See discussion.

Example 1: Large multicystic ovarian mass lesion measuring 10 cm. Sections through the specimen show a multicystic and solid mass with abundant fluid exuding from the cut surfaces (Size of the solid portions is not stated).

Example 2: A brain MRI: 9-cm. complex mass with cystic areas.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Yes, if the cystic mass is pathologically confirmed to be malignant, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field based on the size of the mass in the absence of a more precise tumor size description. For the examples in the discussion section, code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field to: 1) 100 [10 cm]. 2) 090 [9 cm].

As a point of interest, the size of tumor for ovarian and brain primaries is not used in either analysis or as a prognostic indicator for survival. Therefore, spending time separating the cystic and solid portions of the tumor is unnecessary.

 2002
20190085

Primary site/Histology: Are the 2018 ICD-O Histology Update topography codes intended to specify the most common sites for these new codes and can the histology be coded if they occur in other sites? See Discussion.

Example 1: Endometrial biopsy final diagnosis is high-grade serous adenocarcinoma. Should we code this endometrial primary with histology 8441 (serous adenocarcinoma) because C54.X topography code is not listed in the applicable 2018 ICD-O-3 codes Histology Update for the new morphology, or should we apply the new histology code 8461 (high-grade serous carcinoma)?

The NAACCR implementation guideline section 2.3 includes an important reminder that: Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites. Applicable C codes will be noted next to the term in bold font.

However, this is followed by the more ambiguous instruction for edits that appear to imply the combination with non-listed sites is possible: These site- and histology-specific combinations will not be added to the Impossible combination edit. However, if a site other than the one listed with the morphology code is assigned, the result will be an edit requiring review. This is Interfield Edit 25.

The NAACCR Guidelines for ICD-O-3 Histology Code and Behavior Update Implementation, effective January 1, 2018, state: Currently in ICD-O-3, when a topography (C code) is listed in parentheses next to the morphology term, it indicates morphology is most common to that site. It may occur in other sites as well. Many of the new codes, terms, and behaviors listed in this update are site-specific and do not apply to all sites.

Please review the Comments to determine which histology codes are specific to sites. You may use sites not listed as the suggested site; however, it will generate an edit error for review and verification of the appropriate site.

 2019
20000484 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Breast/Cervix: When coding tumor size, when do you use 997 for breast cases and 000 versus 999 for breast and other primaries? See discussion.

Example 1: Ductal carcinoma found in axillary lymph nodes. No tumor found in breast on physical exam or by pathological exam of the breast, but physician states that the breast is definitely the primary site.

Example 2: Paget disease for breast carcinoma with no underlying tumor.

Example 3: Inspection of the cervix shows no visible tumor; biopsy of the cervix reveals CIN III or squamous cell carcinoma, either invasive or in situ.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor field as follows:

Example 1: Code to 000 [No mass, no tumor found, no Paget disease] when a tumor of a stated primary site is not found, but the tumor has metastasized.

Example 2: Code to 997 [Paget disease of nipple with no demonstrable tumor] if there is no underlying tumor and the patient presents with Paget of the breast.

Example 3: Code to 999 [Size not stated] when no size of tumor is given on the pathology report. Do not use 000 in the size field when a tumor is not visible on physical exam or by imaging, but tumor is found microscopically.

 2000
20010164 EOD-Size of Primary Tumor--Prostate: If you only have a biopsy and not a resection of the primary site, can you code the size of the prostate nodule demonstrated on digital rectal exam? See discussion.

Example 1: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. TRUS-guided biopsy of left side of prostate shows adenocarcinoma. Right side biopsy is negative. Is size coded to 010 or 999?

Example 2: Digital rectal exam reveals 1 cm left side prostate nodule. Bone scan was positive for metastatic disease. Is size coded to 010 or 999?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

You need path confirmation that a malignancy exists in the prostate before you can code the size of the nodule seen clinically.

Example 1: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 010 [1 cm], because the nodule in the prostate is confirmed as cancer by needle biopsy.

Example 2: Code the EOD-Size of Primary Tumor to 999 because there was no pathologic confirmation of malignancy.

 2001
20061055 CS Lymph Nodes--Colon: What criteria is used to distinguish between code 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] and 80 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when positive lymph nodes are removed during a colon resection but the lymph node location is not stated? See Discussion.

Example 1: Descending colon excision: Metastatic adenocarcinoma in 8 of 9 lymph nodes.

Example 2: Hepatic flexure and en bloc resection of liver. Adenocarcinoma in 3 of 10 lymph nodes.

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.

Code positive nodes included with the resected specimen as regional lymph nodes, NOS when the location is not stated. See number 3.e under the general instructions for coding CS lymph nodes.

Based only on the information provided, code CS lymph nodes 30 [Regional lymph nodes, NOS] for both examples.

 2006
20021050 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: If the tumor involvement for a case falls between two different regional extension codes, should we code to the lesser of the two codes or should we code extension as unknown? See discussion.

Example 1: CT scan description: Mass in the head of the pancreas. The duodenum is "surrounded" by tumor. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40. It could be 44 [extension to duodenum].

Example 2: CT scan description: Mass in region of pancreatic head and "root" of superior mesenteric artery consistent with pancreatic cancer. Should we code extension to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS] or 99 [unknown] because the extension code could be further than 40? It could be 54 [extension to major blood vessels].

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

In both examples, code the EOD-Extension field to 40 [peripancreatic tissue extension, NOS]. Choose the lowest of a known possible extension code over an unknown code.

 2002
20180089

Reportability--Appendix: Is disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) reportable when it is being referred to as if the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN)? See Discussion.

Example 1: 8/23/2017 debulking path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) with involvement of intrapelvic mucin, left ovarian mass, uterine serosa and pelvic tumor, consistent with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, that may also be called low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei. 8/8/2018 resection of sigmoid and rectum, path diagnosis of peri-colorectal fibroadipose issue with low-grade mucinous carcinoma compatible with the prior diagnosis of pseumomyxoma peritonei with low-grade mucinous carcinoma histology.

Example 2: Path diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm in association with low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei involving the serosa of the small intestine and mesentery. Also, there is involvement of serosal lined soft tissue of peritoneum, omentum, stomach, falciform ligament, gallbladder, diaphragm and spleen.

Some pathologists in our area are referring to DPAM as mucinous carcinoma peritonei, which is causing confusion because the term carcinoma is being used. One would assume that because the pseudomyxoma peritonei/underlying tumor itself is low-grade (LAMN), then the case is not reportable, but we would like clarification.

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is not reportable when the primary tumor is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN).

The term disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis (DPAM) is discouraged by the WHO Digestive System monograph (page 123, section on pseudomyxoma peritonei (mucinous carcinoma peritonei)), since it does not clarify whether the process is low grade or high grade carcinoma. When used, the term should be referring back to the histology of the defining process and in both of these examples this appears to be LAMN, and therefore not reportable. The only exception to this might be if the peritoneal implants were invasive; that is, they contained adenocarcinoma invading into the underlying peritoneum, bowel serosa, etc., rather than simply being present within the surface mucinous material. The pathologist would make this clear if this was, in fact, believed to be invasive carcinoma.

 2018
20200054

Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion.

Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion?

Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary?

Both examples are multiple primaries.

Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart.

Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing.

The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide.

 2020
20031174 Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)/Recurrence--Breast: Has SEER established a priority of medical opinions to determine the number of primaries or a time parameter establishing recurrence? When a pathologist and a physician refer to the subsequent reappearence in the same breast as both "recurrence" and "new primary"? See Description.

Example 1. Patient was diagnosed with right breast cancer in 1999 and underwent lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy. In 2001, patient was again found to have right breast cancer and was admitted for mastectomy. The surgeon stated that this was recurrence. The patient's primary care physician stated the patient had a new primary. Is there a priority order if the multiple physicians involved in a patient's care do not agree on the diagnosis?

Example 2. Patient was diagnosed in 1998 with left breast cancer. In 2000, the patient again was diagnosed with left breast cancer. There was no mention of recurrence so case was accessioned as a second primary. In 2003, patient was again admitted for an unrelated disease. In the H&P, the physician stated that the patient had recurrent breast cancer in 2000. Do we remove the second primary from our file based on this statement three years later?

Example 3. Patient was diagnosed with Paget's disease with intraductal carcinoma, left breast, in 1997. In August 2002, patient underwent left mastectomy for DCIS, left breast. In November 2002, patient's oncologist stated that patient had been on Evista for 5 years and had recurrent cancer despite Evista. Do we accession this as one or two primaries?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Use the best information available. In general, information from the time closest to the event in question is more accurate than later information. The opinion of the pathologist tends to be the most valuable. Beyond that, SEER has not established a hierarchy of physician opinions.

Be aware that a physician's use of the term "recurrence" does not always mean that the second tumor originated from cells from the first tumor.

Examples 1, 2 & 3. Follow SEER rules for determining multiple primaries. In each case, the diagnoses are more than two months apart. Abstract as two primaries.

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.

 2003