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: 03/01/2026 19:50 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021066 Histology: How do we code this field when a less representative specimen has a more specific morphology? See discussion. Example: Biopsy revealed endometrioid adenocarcinoma and the resection demonstrated adenocarcinoma, NOS. Do we code histology per the most representative sample, or to the more specific morphology?

Code the histology using the pathology report from the most representative specimen, even if that histology is less specific.

For the case example above, code 8140 [adenocarcinoma, NOS].

The rationale is that a diagnosis from a smaller specimen will be less accurate and less representative of the true histology compared to a larger tumor specimen.

 2002
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.

 2001
20100061 MP/H Rules/Histology: The 2010 SEER Manual has omitted some useful information in the Histologic Type ICD-O-3 section, specifically the statement of "Do not revise or update the histology code based on subsequent recurrence(s)". Will this statement be added to the revisions of the MPH rules? See Discussion. Example: A 2005 diagnosis of left breast lobular carcinoma [8520/3], followed by a 2009 diagnosis of left breast ductal carcinoma [8500/3]. Rule M10 states this is a single primary, but there is no information in the Histology rules (Multiple Tumors Abstracted as a Single Primary) that the original histology should be retained, thus a person could potentially use these rules to change the original histology to 8522/3 [duct and lobular carcinoma] per rule H28. We will reinstate the instruction not to change the histology code based on recurrence in future versions of the histology coding instructions. However, this instruction may not be applicable to all anatomic sites. It will be reinstated on a site-by-site basis. You may also refer to the instructions on Page 7 of the 2010 SEER Manual under the heading "Changing Information on the Abstract." 2010
20031153 Laterality/Multiple Primaries (Pre-2007)--Ovary: Are ovarian primaries with bilateral involvement always coded to laterality 4 (bilateral)? See Description. Example: "Right ovary with mass replacing majority of ovarian tissue consistent with serous adenoca. Lt ovary with foci of adenoca." No specific statement of primary. Can we assume that the malignancy originated in the right ovary since it is more extensively involved or should laterality be coded 4 because both ovaries have tumor?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

If one ovary is listed as the primary site, code laterality to that ovary. The example above is one of those times when you would code to the single ovary. The issue of one or both ovaries being involved is handled in staging.

Abstract the example above as a single primary with code 1 [Right] for laterality.

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
20010123 Scope of Regional Lymph Node Surgery/EOD-Lymph Node fields: How do you code these fields if a pt has multiple lymph nodes surgeries at different times? See discussion. Example: 1/01/03 Biopsy of 1 sentinel lymph node: positive for metastasis. 1/10/03 Modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection: ductal carcinoma with 8 neg lymph nodes.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 and later: Code Scope of Reg LN Surgery to 7. Code EOD Lymph Nodes field to 6. Code EOD Pathologic Number of Reg LN Positive and Examined fields to 01 and 09 respectively.

For the Scope of Reg LN Surgery use the highest applicable code number if more than one Scope of Reg LN Surgery was performed. The EOD lymph node fields are cumulative and count all lymph nodes removed during the diagnostic and first course treatment procedures.

 2001
20000532 EOD-Pathologic Review of Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive and Examined: Should a lymph node biopsy be counted in these fields or are these fields for lymph node dissections only? See discussion. Example: 1) Lymph node biopsy: adenocarcinoma. 2) Lymph node dissection: 4/15 regional lymph nodes positive for adenocarcinoma.

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

These fields record the number of regional lymph nodes examined pathologically whether from a biopsy or from a dissection. If the single lymph node biopsied was a regional lymph node, code the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Positive field to 05 and the Number of Regional Lymph Nodes Examined field to 16. If the lymph node biopsied was a distant node, code these fields to 04 and 15 respectively.

 2000
20041005 EOD-Extension--Retroperitoneum: Does the presence of "necrotic masses, NOS" in the blood, which are not pathologically evaluated, affect the coding of this field? See Description. Encapsulated malignant tumor within the retroperitoneum was removed. Surgical report: "In the abdomen, blood had necrotic masses floating freely and encapsulated a 3-4" mass." No pathologic assessment of the necrotic masses is available. For cases diagnosed 1998-2003: Necrotic masses do not affect the EOD-extension code. 2004
20000440 Grade, Differentiation--Brain and CNS: Can grade IV be implied for brain primaries with the histology of glioblastoma multiforme, even if there is no statement of grade in the path report? See discussion. Dr. Platz has instructed the Iowa registry to code glioblastoma multiforme to grade IV, even when there is no corroborating statement of grade in the path report. This is also supported in some references. Code the Grade, Differentiation field to 9 [Cell type not determined, not stated or not applicable] in the absence of a stated grade on the pathology report. If a grade is stated, code the stated grade. SEER does not recommend adopting the rule in the Discussion. 2000
20120001 Multiple primaries/Recurrence--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are abstracted if a patient was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2001 and was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma involving the larynx in 2011? See Discussion. Does the medical oncologist's statement that this is a second malignancy, rather than a recurrence, given the length of the disease-free interval, affect the number of primaries abstracted?

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

Abstract a single primary per Rule M2; a single histology is a single primary diagnosed. The histology code for both the 2001 and 2011 diagnoses is 9680/3[diffuse large B-cell lymphoma]. Case is coded as diagnosed in 2001.

The hematopoietic physician experts say that the issue with lymphomas is that the patient may be disease-free then recur years later. Even though years have passed, this is still a recurrence or relapse. Currently, there are no molecular markers that are able to distinguish "new primaries" from recurrences. There are also no established criteria for timing rules that could be used to determine a new primary from a recurrence.

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.

2012
20120018 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology coded if a lumpectomy reveals multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ spanning an area of 0.9-1.2 cm with close margins and a subsequent mastectomy reveals only a single focus of lobular carcinoma in situ measuring 0.2 cm in the UOQ, remote from all surgical margins? See Discussion. Does the general instruction apply in this case that indicates the histology is coded from the most representative tumor specimen resulting in the histology coded to 8500/2 [DCIS]? Or is the histology coded to 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] per Rule H28 because there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma [8500]?

Code the histology to duct and lobular carcinoma in situ [8522/2].

For cases diagnosed 2007 and later, the steps used to arrive at this decision are:

Go to the Breast MP rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS Module Rule M4 because the patient had multiple foci of DCIS and a separate, single focus of LCIS. The rules are intended to be reviewed in consecutive order within the applicable Module. Tumors that are lobular and duct are a single primary.

Go to the Breast Histology rules found in the Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules Manual. Start at the MULTIPLE TUMORS ABSTRACTED AS A SINGLE PRIMARY Module Rule H20 because the patient has multiple foci of DCIS and LCIS. Code the histology as 8522/2 [duct and lobular carcinoma in situ] when there is any combination of lobular [8520] and duct carcinoma.

The DCIS and LCIS are separate tumors. The DCIS was removed by the lumpectomy and the LCIS by the mastectomy. The most representative specimen for the DCIS is the lumpectomy. The most representative specimen for the LCIS is the mastectomy. Both pathology reports must be used in this case to determine the histology.

2012