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: 05/24/2026 18:23 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20021152 Primary Site: Can we assume the primary site for "chordoma" is soft tissue if the bone is not stated to be involved?

Default the coding of the Primary Site field for chordomas to the bone where the tumor began in the body if the primary site is not clearly stated to be soft tissue. Bone is often the primary site for chordomas.

Based on advice from pathologist consultants: This is one of those situations where we can be quite comfortable with a default, in this case to bone, not soft tissue. Chordoma is a tumor arising in the nucleus pulposis, presumably from remnants of notochord - thus its exclusive origin is in the sacrococcygeal region, spheno-occipital region, and vertebral bodies, otherwise known collectively as the axial skeleton. Any "chordoma" in soft tissue (with no relationship to axial skeleton) is probably a myxoid chondrosarcoma or parachordoma (extremely rare).

 2002
20021151

Reportability: A "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" (GIST) is not always stated to be "malignant" in the path report even though the tumor appears to meet criteria for malignancy. Is the tumor SEER reportable? See discussion.

Evaluation of Malignancy and Prognosis of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Review. Miettinen, M. et al, Human Pathology 2002 May; 33(5) 478-83). This article states there is an increasing number of GISTs because the majority of tumors previously diagnosed as gastrointestinal smooth muscle tumors (leiomyomas, leiomyoblastomas and leiomyosarcomas) are now classified as GISTs. It states that gastrointestinal autonomic nerve tumors (GANTs) are also GISTs based on their KIT positivity and presence of KIT-activating mutations. This article also states that a GIST is probably malignant if it meets the following criteria: 1) Intestinal tumors: Maximum diameter >5 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs. 2) Gastric tumors: Maximum diameter >10 cm or more than 5 mitoses per 50 HPFs.

Some of the path reports that meet these criteria use the word "malignant", and others do not. Some of the cases that are not called "malignant" in the path diagnosis are signed out clinically as "malignant."

The case is reportable if a pathologist or clinician confirms a diagnosis of cancer. If there is no such confirmation, the case is not SEER reportable.

 2002
20021077 Histology (Pre-2007)/Primary Site/EOD-Extension--All Sites: How do you code these fields for a resected thyroid that is negative for any diagnostic abnormality and a left ovary that demonstrates "papillary thyroid carcinoma arising in a cystic teratoma"? See discussion. Teratomas occurring in the ovaries frequently contain various types of fully differentiated tissue that normally occur in other body parts. Should the primary be coded to the ovary or to the organ in which that type of tissue normally occurs?

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Primary Site field to the organ in which the cancer arose. For this tumor, code the Primary Site field to C56.9 [ovary] and Histology to 8260/3 [papillary carcinoma of thyroid]. Use the ovary EOD for tumors diagnosed 1998-2003.

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.

 2002
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]. 2002
20020063 EOD-Extension--Breast: How do we interpret "dermal lymphovascular space invasion" and "dermal lymphovascular invasion" for extension? See discussion. A breast path report states tumor invades dermal lymphovascular spaces. Also, pathologists sometimes state "dermal lymphovascular invasion". Are both these terms synonymous with dermal lymphatic invasion?

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

Dermal lymphovascular invasion and tumor in dermal lymphatics would both be coded as dermal lymphatic invasion.

 2002
20021053 EOD-Extension--Pancreas: How would you code extension for the following non-surgically treated pancreas primaries? None of these cases has TNM staging to assist with classifying the extent of disease. See discussion.

1) CT scan: Cystic lesion in body of pancreas. Discharge dx: pancreas ca.

2) Discharge dx: CBD obstruction due to probable early ca in head of pancreas.

3) CT scan: mass involves the head and body of the pancreas. No evidence of abdominal mets. Discharge dx: Locally advanced pancreatic ca.

4) H&P: Pt with splenomegaly probably secondary to splenic vein thrombosis and a large ca of the tail of pancreas. Imp: Advanced pancreatic ca of the tail of pancreas. Would you code extension to splenic vein [56]?

5) H&P: Pancreatic ca with extension or mets into porta hepatis. (Would you assume direct extension or mets?)

6) CT scan: Pancreas ca. Significant peritoneal implants. (Would you assume the implants to be related to the pancreas primary and code as involvement?)

For cases diagnosed 1998-2003:

The information provided for these pancreatic primary examples is very limited. Additional information should be sought. If not available, code the EOD-Extension field to:

1) 10

2) 10

3) 10

4) 99

5) Assuming primary in head, body or tail of pancreas, 76

6) 85

 2002
20021200 Date of Diagnosis: How do you code this field when the pathologic confirmation is delayed for 2 months because the clinician decides to "watch and see what happens" to a CT identified mass thought to be either a "metastasis from a previously diagnosed malignancy or a new primary"? Code the Date of Diagnosis field to the date of the scan. This is the earliest date that a recognized medical practitioner said the patient had cancer. The diagnosis on the CT scan was a malignancy. The only question was whether the mass on the scan was metastatic or a primary. 2002
20021122 Histology (Pre-2007)--Breast: For a path diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ, cribriform type with apocrine features, does the term "apocrine" modify the term cribriform or does it represent another type of ductal carcinoma in situ? See discussion. It can be difficult to determine if two terms mentioned in a pathology report are describing different aspects of the same morphology or if the two terms are describing two different morphologies.

For tumors diagnosed prior to 2007:

Code the Histology field to 8401/2 [Apocrine carcinoma in situ]. According to our pathologist consultant "Because apocrine is the more unusual tumor, and pulling it out of the cribriform category keeps the latter a little cleaner (because most cribriform ductal carcinoma in situ is not particularly apocrine), I am inclined to code to the histology to apocrine ductal carcinoma in situ."

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.

 2002
20021042

Hormone Therapy--Breast: Should Zoladex (gosrelin) or Lupron (leuprolide acetate) be coded as treatment for breast cancer when the physician does not indicate whether or not these drugs are intended as cancer-directed therapy? See discussion.

According to an oncologist at the research hospital in our region, these drugs are given in combination with chemotherapy for two reasons:

1) To preserve ovarian function.

2) The agents may be more effective in treating breast cancer when given in conjunction with chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone.

For cases diagnosed 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2010: Code Zoladex (gosrelin) and Lupron (leuprolide acetate) as 01 [Hormone therapy administered as first course therapy] only when stated to be given as part of the first course of cancer-directed therapy. If you do not know whether these drugs were given to preserve ovarian function or as an adjunct to chemotherapy (i.e, there is no treatment plan), do not code as Hormonal treatment given.

2002
20021090 Primary Site--Ovary/Peritoneum: How should the Primary Site field be coded when no resection is done and it is uncertain whether the primary site is in the ovary or the peritoneum? See discussion. CT: ascites, omental cake and peritoneal studding. H&P impression: probable ovarian or peritoneal primary. Repeat CT: no enlarged adnexal mass seen to suggest ca of ovary, but possibility couldn't be ruled out. Omental bx: Metastatic ca. Comment: "IHC stains have been performed and are not typical of ovarian ca, although do not exclude an ovarian primary." After the bx, there were two clinical diagnoses written a month apart with no evidence of further work-up between those dates. The first diagnosis was "ovarian ca". The second was "Peritoneal carcinomatosis 2 month ago; Primary is unknown, possibly ovarian."

Use the best information available to identify the primary site. In this case, it is the physician's clinical assessment. Code the Primary Site to C56.9 [Ovary] for this example because the ovary is indicated to be the primary site according to the physicians involved.

When there is no surgical procedure involving the removal of the ovaries, code the Primary Site based on the clinical assessment of the disease location. If the disease is only noted to be in the peritoneum, code site to peritoneum, NOS. If the disease is seen clinically in both the ovary and the peritoneum, code site to ovary.

 2002